TITLE
Title
TEXT AMENDMENT CASE #25-02-PLBD-00111: AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE APPENDIX 1 (STREET NAME AND ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT STANDARDS) TO REFINE THE PROCEDURE FOR ASSIGNING SECONDARY ADDRESSES, REDEFINE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (TRC) ROLE IN ASSIGNING ADDRESSES FOR INTERNAL STREETS, EXPAND REASONS FOR RE-ASSIGNING ADDRESSES, AND ADD REQUIREMENTS FOR NAMING PRIVATE STREETS AND ADDRESSING STRUCTURES OFF PRIVATE STREETS
end
SPONSOR
Sponsor
J. Leslie Bell (Planning & Development Director) / Marlena Isley (GIS Manager)
end
BACKGROUND
Background
On March 12, 2025, the Planning Board recommended that the Guilford County Board of Commissioners approve the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment Case #25-02-PLBD-00111 (attached) and that it be effective 30 days after the Board of Commissioners’ approval. The proposed revisions are summarized as follows:
(1) Section A-4.A.1 (Single-family Detached and Townhouse Dwelling) clarifies that when a primary address is unavailable, an accessory dwelling will be assigned a secondary address that includes the primary address followed by a dash and the letter “A” (example: “1621-A Smith Street”);
(2) Section A-4.A.2 (Multi-family and Two-Family Dwellings) provides that the secondary address for multi-family and two-family dwellings will include the primary address followed by a dash and a unit number (example: “1621-101” instead of “1621-A” for a unit on the first floor and “1621-201”, instead of “1621-2A” for a unit on the second floor). Addresses for internal drives may be assigned after considering comments from the TRC. It is no longer subject to the approval of the TRC
(3) Section A-4.A.3 (Mobile Home Parks) provides that addresses for internal drives in mobile home parks may be assigned after considering comments from the TRC. It is no longer subject to TRC's approval;
(4) Under Section A-4.B (Commercial and Industrial) provides that the secondary address for each tenant space in commercial and industrial buildings will include the primary address followed by a dash and a unit number (example: “1621-101”, instead of “1621-A”, for a unit on the first floor and “1621-201”, instead of “1621-2A” for a unit on the second floor). Addresses for internal drives may be assigned after considering comments from the TRC. It is no longer subject to TRC approval;
(5) Section A-4.C.1.b, Section A-4.C.2.a, and Section A-4.C.3.a. provides that addresses for internal drives of schools, hospitals, and parks may be assigned after considering comments from the TRC. It is no longer subject to TRC approval;
(6) Under Section A-5.A, adds two items as reason to re-assign addresses, including existing addresses that do not conform to addressing standards and addresses that do not conform to applicable policies or rules issued by the United States Postal Service or other government entities; and
(7) Section A-6.C, adds item 9 to require private streets to be named and structures off them addressed when they serve at least three (3) of any combination of households, businesses, and/or other active uses and or have a length of 200 feet or greater.
For clarity, subsequent to the Planning Board recommendation, staff is requesting that the aforementioned change to Section A-6.C (item 7 above) include the noted text change (and or) as shown above.
For clarity, the revisions to the addressing standards presented herein are not intended to be retroactive and only apply upon Board of Commissioners adoption, moving forward.
Subject to the comment at Item (7) above regarding a change to Section A-6.C, the Planning Board recommended unanimously (draft minutes attached) to the Board of Commissioners the adoption of Text Amendment Case #25-02-PLBD-00011 to be effective 30 days after the Board of Commissioners’ approval. (Ayes: Donnelly, Craft, Little, Bui, Buchanan, Drumwright, Stalder and Alston. Nays: None. Absent: Gullick)
The staff report and the full text of the proposed amendments are attached . The text to be added is shown with a single strikethrough, and the new text is underlined.
Consistency with Adopted Plans:
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the Governmental Coordination Element Goal #1 of the Guilford County Comprehensive Plan (effective Oct. 1, 2006) which states that “Guilford County shall seek to maximize the effective and efficient provision of governmental programs and services by coordinating implementation and delivery efforts internally and with external partners.” Furthermore, it is consistent with Objective 1.1 of said goal which states “Enhance intra-agency relationships within Guilford County government to improve the coordination of policies and programs, minimize the duplication of services, and to provide superior customer service to citizens and businesses.
end
BUDGET IMPACT
Budget Impact
NO ADDITIONAL COUNTY FUNDS REQUIRED
end
REQUESTED ACTION
Requested Action
Hold a legislative hearing and adopt Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment Case #25-02-PLBD-00111, as presented herein, and the aforementioned statement of plan consistency, as presented herein, to revise UDO Appendix 1, Street Name and Address Assignment Standards to be effective thirty (30) days from adoption.
end