Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Udo Kt283 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aldermen adopt UDO clarifications; ask staff to return with expanded HOA notice language
Summary
The board approved three edits to Article 6 of the UDO (KT283) — clarifying neighborhood meeting postmark timing, removing a now-prohibited cooling-off resubmittal limit to comply with state law, and aligning quasi-judicial submittal timeframes — and asked staff to return with proposed HOA-notification language by October.
The Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to adopt text amendment KT283, a package of three edits to Article 6 of the town's Unified Development Ordinance. The changes clarify the timing for neighborhood meeting notices (mailed notice must be postmarked at least 10 but no more than 25 days before the meeting), remove a UDO provision that would have limited resubmittals (to comply with a change in North Carolina law), and align submittal deadlines for appeals and interpretations with the town's quasi-judicial calendar.
Community Development Director Catherine Garner told the board the first change clarifies how to compute the 10-day notice period, the second change is required by state statute so the town is not imposing a cooling-off period after denials, and the third change standardizes submittal processes for quasi-judicial cases. "Notice of meeting shall be sent by first class mail to all property owners within a 200 foot radius... Mailed notice must shall be postmarked at least 10, but no more than 25 days before the hearing," Garner said.
Anne Johnson, representing the concerned citizens of the Arboretum subdivision, presented a petition of 30 signatures and asked the board to require that neighborhood meeting notices be sent to every homeowner in townhome communities, citing shared stormwater systems, private roads and HOA agreements. "Not everybody in the Arboretum sees that sign and knows what those signs mean," Johnson said, urging broader notice to homeowners.
Staff said the planning board had debated widening notice requirements and asked staff to research alternatives; town staff and some board members expressed concern that changing neighborhood-meeting notice rules without concurrent changes in the town's legal-notice processes could create confusion by producing two different notice recipient sets. Mr. Swisher (town manager) said the packet before the board contained highlighted language that would require HOA-owned common-area adjacencies to prompt notice to all property owners within the adjacent neighborhood, but staff recommended additional study before adopting such an expansion.
The board's motion approved the staff-recommended KT283 edits and asked staff to return with language addressing HOA notification for the meeting on Oct. 1. The vote was unanimous.
