UDO Rewrite

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

I understand the need for rules and regulations on signage, but as someone who works at a home builder, the limitations greatly impact our ability to market our homes and communities to people that are actively searching for homes. We have a hard time showcasing our locations and all that is great about them due to the restrictions. The fact that signage is limited even inside of the neighborhood is incredibly frustrating when we're trying to illustrate all of the homes and amenities that our neighborhoods offer - the better we're able to do that, the more likely someone is to purchase which is a win for both us as a company and the municipality. I would like to see these regulations loosened, especially within the neighborhood itself. Thank you.

Removed by moderator.

I wanted to share some concerns about the proposed short-term rental restrictions in Section 3.4.4.L of the draft UDO, particularly the 660-foot separation requirement and the 5% limit for multifamily buildings.

My husband and I have operated short-term rentals in Wake Forest since 2022. Across our properties, we’ve had over 1,000 bookings and only one noise complaint. We take pride in maintaining our properties and making sure we’re good neighbors.

I understand the Town doesn’t want neighborhoods overrun with short-term rentals, and I agree with that. However, I don’t think the proposed restrictions necessarily accomplish that goal.

For example, we own two rentals approximately a quarter mile apart. One is a single-family home and the other is a condo in a completely different neighborhood. They don’t share an HOA or even a residential community, but the 660-foot restriction could potentially affect them. Wouldn’t it make more sense to look at how many short-term rentals are actually within a particular neighborhood rather than just the distance between properties?

I’m also concerned about the proposed 5% limit in multifamily buildings. When we purchased our condo, the developer specifically advertised the community as short-term rental friendly. There is already a 20% rental cap in the community, and several owners have been operating short-term rentals there for years.

I had previously suggested looking at Raleigh’s regulations, which allow up to 25% of units in a multifamily building to be short-term rentals, or two units, whichever is greater. I think that’s a much more reasonable approach and still prevents a building from becoming predominantly short-term rentals.

Another concern is how these changes would affect existing rentals. I would hope that properties already operating legally would be grandfathered in, but would that protection stay with the property if it were sold? I think that’s extremely important. Owners have made significant investments based on the rules in place when they purchased, and it wouldn’t seem fair for those investments to lose value simply because the property changes hands.

I’m certainly not against reasonable regulations. I support permits, safety requirements, occupancy taxes, and holding owners accountable when their properties cause problems. I just believe the focus should be on responsible operation rather than restrictions that could penalize owners who have been operating successfully for years.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and hope the Town will reconsider these two restrictions, particularly the 5% condo limit, and clarify how existing rentals will be protected.

Team, I'm still working through the document. I'm learning a lot from it. I appreciate the hard work. The first issue that I have is regarding ground-mounted solar energy collection.
Section 3.5.2 Y.1 states, Ground mounted Solar Energy Collection systems
shall be permitted in the rear yard only.

This would not work at my existing home at 548 N College Street. I would appreciate it if you would consider changing to allow ground mounted on the south side of an existing GR with a 20 foot setback.

Raleigh recently amended their UDO to prohibit developers using non-native invasive species/plants. I would like to see more in the UDO about planting native plants/requiring developers and the town use native plants.

Рейтинг формируется из строительных компаний частных домов https://stroitelnye-kompanii-domov-iz-gazobetona.ru/

Removed by moderator.

6.5.2.A states Community space area shall be located: In a manner that creates a development focal point,
B. To be highly visible and accessible to residents and/or
visitors of the development,

In our old UDO we state that it should be centrally located. Can we still achieve that with this new language, or is this new language saying we are open to community space not being centrally located?

Thanks!

Removed by moderator.

A greenhouse cover made of reinforced film is an excellent Купить теплицу в Киселёвске

Watching pictures in a cinema is far better than viewing them at home.
The large screen and immersive sound system create a deeply theatrical experience.
channelfanbase.co.uk
You can totally focus on the story free from interruptions like household chores.
Moreover, the communal energy of laughing as a crowd makes the film far more impactful.

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

This primarily concerns services that respond to specific user queries https://www.computerra.ru/354654/kazhdyj-tretij-polzovatel-ii-stal-tratit-menshe-na-pokupki/

Preparing a scholarly volume requires significantly https://able2know.org/user/dissertatsia/

Removed by moderator.