REBIC – Staff Briefs UDO Advisory Committee Members Regarding Proposed Floodplain and Stormwater Updates

From REBIC - 3/31/26

Last Thursday Planning Staff convened a meeting of the UDO Advisory Committee, of which I serve as a member. Topics discussed included proposed floodplain changes, potential amendments to stormwater rules, an update on text amendments, information about the updated UDO website, and a brief discussion regarding future meetings and how input would be received from the committee.

I’m particularly interested in gaining feedback from you on two items. It would appear, based on the presentation, that we are in the early stages of the process regarding proposed floodplain changes. Please share your thoughts about the proposal.

Secondly, I would like to hear about any experiences you have had with stormwater compliance and dealing with Article 25: Post-Construction Stormwater Regulations of the UDO, especially those of you conducting infill development.

Here’s a link to the full presentation that was provided by staff:

UDO Advisory Committee Presentation

The recording of the meeting is available to view using the link below:

Video Link

Your input assists us in providing policy direction and your real-life examples regarding challenges in complying with the ordinance, along with potential solutions, help us inform staff and elected officials and may result in future changes as well as enhanced clarity.

My Take:  Stormwater mitigation is tricky, as are the rules designed to ensure compliance. Although it makes sense that as infill development and redevelopment keep occurring, I see conflicts emerging, and existing residents should not be adversely impacted by unwanted stormwater runoff.

However, as local governments seek to impose regulations aimed at limiting these disputes, they must do so within the constraints of State Statute. I would argue that in this case, Charlotte is not staying within the Statute. State law specifically states that stormwater controls are only required for new built upon area that is created on a site minus any existing built upon area that already existed prior to the project. Charlotte does not give you credit for the built upon area that already exists and treats a scrape and rebuild as “new development.”  Here’s the pertinent section of G.S. 143-214.7 Stormwater runoff rules and programs:

“(b3) Stormwater runoff rules and programs shall not require private property owners to install new or increased stormwater controls for (i) preexisting development or (ii) redevelopment activities that do not remove or decrease existing stormwater controls. When a preexisting development is redeveloped, either in whole or in part, increased stormwater controls shall only be required for the amount of impervious surface being created that exceeds the amount of impervious surface that existed before the redevelopment, irrespective of whether the impervious surface that existed before the redevelopment is to be demolished or relocated during the development activity. A property owner may elect to treat the stormwater resulting from the net increase in built-upon area above the preexisting development for the purpose of exceeding allowable density under the applicable water supply watershed rules as provided in G.S. 143-214.5(d3). This subsection applies to all local governments regardless of the source of their regulatory authority. Local governments shall include the requirements of this subsection in their stormwater ordinances.”

We will continue to weigh in on this topic as changes to the ordinance are considered. In the meantime, let me know if you have come across any similar challenges.