Skip to main content
Guilford County
File #: 2026-153    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Public Hearing Status: Passed
File created: 2/5/2026 In control: Board of Commissioners
On agenda: 3/5/2026 Final action: 3/5/2026
Title: TEXT AMENDMENT CASE #25-12-PLBD-00151: AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 5 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIVIDUAL USES) OF THE UDO TO ADJUST DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE WAREHOUSE, SELF STORAGE USE IN THE GB AND HB DISTRICTS
Attachments: 1. 3_BCC TA 25-12-PLBD-00151, 2. 4_BCC HB and GB District Standards (attachment), 3. 2_BCC Staff Report 25-12-PLBD-00151, 4. PB Minutes 01-14-26
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.
TITLE
Title
TEXT AMENDMENT CASE #25-12-PLBD-00151: AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 5 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIVIDUAL USES) OF THE UDO TO ADJUST DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE WAREHOUSE, SELF STORAGE USE IN THE GB AND HB DISTRICTS
end

SPONSOR
Sponsor
J. Leslie Bell
end

BACKGROUND
Background
At its January 14, 2026 regular meeting, the Guilford County Planning Board recommended approval to the Board of Commissioners Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment Case #25-12-PLBD-00151 (as presented herein) that proposes to adjust the individual development standards for the Warehouse, Self-Storage use when located in the GB, General Business, and HB, Highway Business, zoning districts (attached). This amendment revises Section 5.16.B to remove the maximum height limitation of twenty (20) feet for Warehouse, Self-Storage. With this revision, the maximum height allowed for Warehouse, Self-Storage would instead default to the maximum height requirement of the district in which the parcel is located (see attached UDO Sections 4.2.15 GB-General Business and 4.2.16 HB-Highway Business, where the maximum structure height is 50 feet without additional setback requirements to build higher). Currently, self-storage warehouses are restricted to no more than twenty (20) feet in structural height, while General Warehouses in the same zoning district are subject to the underlying zoning district’s height requirement. This amendment aligns the height development standard for these two uses, so both are subject to the general zoning district height requirement, as both are of similar development intensity.

The Planning Board recommended approval of this text amendment to the Board of Commissioners by a vote of 6-1, with two members absent. (Ayes: Donnelly, Craft, Gullick, Stalder, Drumwright, and Bui. Nays: Little.). Please find staff report attached.

The full text of the proposed amendments is attached. The text to be added is shown with a strikethrough, and the tex...

Click here for full text