2026-09-21 - Planning Board

Thank you all for coming. Um, Laurel, could you uh call us to order, please? >> Brian Neve >> here. >> George Stanziel >> here. >> Vic Vascelino, >> present. Tammy Hunucker, >> Clark Pton >> here, >>

Jeff Rden Hill >> here, >> and Cameron White >> here. >> And we do have a >> All right. Thank you. Um onto the agenda approval. I was going to um if the board is sees this favorably suggest a slight

change to the agenda this evening and that um under new business since we have three cases that are all very similar with the same applicant asking for the same thing that we have the three

presentations first and then um go on to the discussion of the individual cases rather than presentation vote presentation vote presentation vote. So, um, if that'sable to you guys, I'll entertain a

motion for that. >> Move approve. >> Okay. Second. >> We have a motion to second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. All opposed. All right. Thank you. And thank you staff for your flexibility in that. Um, on

to minutes. Uh, everyone had a chance to review the minutes and get your corrections in. Um, if uh unless there are any other edits, I'll entertain a motion to approve as presented. >> I make a motion

to approve as presented. >> Second. >> I wasn't here, but I'll second. >> Okay. Motion. All in favor? >> I. All opposed. >> Thank you. Um, public comment. If anyone uh would like to comment on

anything, now is your opportunity. Not seeing anyone moving towards the podium. we will move on to new business and we will um get our I guess three presentations and then um go on to discussion. >>

All right, we've got three on deck for tonight. They're all fairly similar and fairly close together, so we'll breeze through all of these. Um first one we'll talk about is 374 Highway 101. All three

of these resoning requests do require land use plan amendments. So, we're looking at them a little bit more um in depth than we might typically. The subject property of this resoning or zoning map

amendment is 374 Highway 101, which can be found at the northeast corner of Bunch Road and Highway 101. The property is not within the special flood hazard area in the effective or preliminary flood

maps. The subject property is within the residential single family district R20. The neighboring properties are also the current R20 or our general business B1 which is the requested zoning district.

The current zoning district R20 is compatible with the current future land use classification suburban residential, but a reszoning to B1 would require an amendment to Bowford's comprehensive encama

land use plans future land use map or flum. The applicant has requested that the amendment uh reflect village commercial which would be consistent with B1. Across Bunch Road, three of the four corners

of the Highway 101 intersection with Highway 70 are Village Commercial. Village commercial is a smaller scale commercial classification than the commercial center that we've seen on recent SUP

applications. I've provided screenshots of the applicable dimensional standards for development and the permitted and special uses on the current and requested zoning districts, but these are also in

the agenda packet. The setbacks are reduced only by 10 feet in the rear yard. All the other dimensional standards carry forward in the requested district, including the currently applicable 40ft

height limit. The list of permitted and special uses is considerably longer with B1 as is expected with a non-residential zoning district. The lot is currently non-conforming in lot size at a little

over 14,000 square feet where R20 requires 20,000 square feet. And the lot width is 85 ft non-conforming where R20 requires 100 foot lot width. But this does not this does not qualify for a non-

conforming lot setback reduction because those stop at 69 ft width. The lot would be conforming under B1's 5,000 foot lot size and 60 60 foot lot width. And we can I'll go through this and then we'll

kind of breeze through it on the next ones. Um this resoning as it requires a future land use map amendment. I've included a screenshot of the division of coastal management land use plan amendment

certification process. You can see we're at the first block circled in red. Uh the board of commissioners public hearing is in purple. Everything else is green on staff's plate and blue is division of

coastal management. So there's a considerably long process that goes through um adoption at the local level and then certification at the state level. Any questions on this initial reszoning or we can

save them till the end if that's appropriate as well. >> I I just have one question. >> Okay. >> So we have a zoning and we have a land use plan change. >> Yes. >> Does that require two votes? You

could do it at one time. >> Okay, >> good. Ready to move on to the next one? All right, scroll through this. All right, case 2611, reszoning for 404 Highway 101, just up the road a bit. Uh, this

property is also not within the special flood hazard area in effective or future preliminary maps. Subject property is also within R20. Neighboring properties are R20 or are the requested B1 zoning

district. Um, there's also a abuing RC5 and that is the next reszoning case. um requesting B1. See, current zoning district R20 is compatible with the current suburban residential. Uh reszoning 2B1

would require an amendment to the future lane use map. Um and they've requested village commercial on this one as well. So, you can see on your color-coded map that we've got the red and the blue. Um

and those are reflecting those that information. We're again looking at an R20 to B1 um requested change. I'll note that this lot is conforming in size and dimension in R20 and would also be

conforming in B1. Any questions on this item? >> Okay. All right. Um, case 2620 is a little different. Uh, we're looking at two parcels. We're actually looking at one and a half parcels. Um, subject

property. Um, we're looking at 125 Bunch Road, which is split zoned, uh, between RC5 and B1, and, um, 472 Highway 101. There we go. Um 472 highway 101 is R20 with airport environmental overlay AED um

as an overlay district. Uh subject property 125 Bunch Road split zone the western 8.23 acres is RC5 and the eastern 13.57 acres is already general business B1. The split zoning is a result of lot

combination, each of which had different zoning districts. The re reszoning request to reszone the RC5 portion to B1 would fix this split zoning and result in an entirely B1 parcel. Neighboring

properties are also R20 or are the requested B1 zoning district with and without the AED overlay district. Um, and just to read the section from the ordinance, the objective of the airport

environmental overlay district, AED, is to establish noise mitigation measures and to provide mechanisms for the notification of property owners um around the airport of potential noise and vibration

impacts from Michael J. Smith Field, which includes Sorry, I don't want to have to go through all of this. We'll get to it in a bit. Um, I just want to point out that we've got this overlay district.

The overlay district is not subject to the reasonzoning request tonight. Um, so I don't want to derail us. It would remain in place, the overlay. Um, we're just looking at changing that base zoning

district layer. So, I can um answer any questions and I've got my ordinance here if we need to take a look at it. Um, these requests are a little bit different. they have a different future land use

classification. Um so R20 is also compatible with this future land use classification ruralworking lands. Um but RC5 is not consistent with that future land use classification. So resoning 472 the um

more northern piece um and the portion of 125 Bunch Road would require an amendment to the future land use map. Um and the applicant has uh requested village commercial for these as well. Um the

reszoning to 125 Bunch Road only applies to a portion of the property, but the future land use map amendment to village commercial could apply to the whole property to bring the whole property into

conformity. Um as the full property is in rural working land and could come over to village commercial. So reszoning half future land use amendment for the whole thing. Um for consistency, we've got

screenshots here. Um 472 first uh setbacks are only reduced by 10 feet in the rear yard. Continuing forward that 40 foot height limit which may be reduced um proximity to the airport and everything.

Um the lot is conforming in size and dimension in R20 and B1 125 bunch. The portion that we're discussing to reszone is RC5 and considered a corner lot. So we'll see that the front setbacks are

increased um under B1, but the rear setback is decreased uh and they be subject to a 40 foot height limitation um in B1 rather than 35 foot in RC5. Uh the list of permitted and special uses is also

longer um on the change from RC5 to B1. The lot is conforming in size. Um under B1 uh RC5 is a little bit different because that's a cluster district and the B1 standards already apply to the majority

section of the property. All right. Are there any questions about that case? All right, got the applicant's presentation. Hello. >> Hello. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> I'm Diana >> and I'm

Jeff Baron and this is Diana Kroka and we are representatives of Baron Properties and we are grateful to have the opportunity to present our vision for for Bowford Crossing. This is 80 acres total

that we have assembled over the last 15 years. and it's at the intersection of of as you know of 101 and 70 bypass. It's regionally located and and accessible to the down east as well as the Bowford

marketplace. It's ideal for commercial and commerce and a and a mixeduse based project that's convenient to the region. It is literally the hub of the wheel for Bowford in Down East. Our team is Lyall

Gardner. Lyall's been a uh a resident of Bowford for 15 years, a land owner. He owns a lot of these parcels that we've assembled. He's affiliated with Spectrum Homes and Evergreen Construction. And

then of course Jeff Baron. He's my he's uh Carter County resident, commercial developer and planner and owner of Baron Properties. >> Yes. >> And I am Diana Kroka. I am the broker in charge at Baron

Properties. >> And then we have Josh Edmonson here. He's on our team. He's part of our engineering firm >> with Tidewater Engineering. >> And Michelle presented this beautifully. So maybe just Yeah,

we're going to try to just give you a fly over so that you've got a a an overview of what we're trying to accomplish. The current zoning, as you can see, the current zoning is kind of strange and

awkward mix of of R20, RC5, and B1. And it's it makes it very difficult to plan and develop this property because of because of how it's mixed all together. It's odd that you that there's B1 zoning in

the middle of this project with literally no access because there's no access on 70 bypass. um the current B1 zoning is is buried right in the middle of this assemblage and uh it just doesn't make

sense and it's surrounded by residential zones. So, we're trying to accomplish that as one unit in B1. Yes, it proposed resoning that Michelle has put forward. We got four parcels that we'd like to

reszone from residential to B1 totaling about 28 acres. >> Okay. So, why now? Why are we wanting to develop this project now? Is because Bowfort is growing and the service infrastructure needs to grow

with it. >> Yes, sir. >> Can you get closer to the mic? >> Yes. Sorry. Um, wow. Bowford and Downeyy's strong residential growth has the need for commercial goods and services. Number two, the

airport's plan to extend the runway and relocate Highway 101 are underway. Number three, we have completed the 80 acre acquisition of property that is needed to develop the commercial and mixeduse

project. And number four, the ongoing construction of I42 makes the Crystal Coast more accessible to the triangle and areas west. Um, we see that future growth is inevitable and balanced growth is

highly desirable. >> And I'll add to that that the last major commercial project that was done in Bowford was 1994 and that was the food line. Um, that's 32 years ago. And since then there's been

thousands of lots that have been approved of which a lot have been developed. And we just see that this marketplace is growing and needs goods and services. This is the existing condition of the

property. You see it outlined in white. This is the future condition. The airport runway is going to be extended and it'll it'll cross over existing 101. and it will create the need for the relocation

of 101. You can see that in purple um on the map itself. The um existing 101 will have a culde-sac at the time that they do these improvements to the airport and the airport timeline is currently

unknown. the concept master plan. We envision a main street coming from existing 101 to connect to the future 101 and have different types of commercial uses um throughout the property. >> Yeah. And

we plan on doing this in is a phased approach. So phase one would be in red um like thinking groceries, goods and services, maybe office. And then phase two being that yellow, the medical, fitness,

and retail. And then phase three would be in the green, more recreational, institutional, more goods and services and retail. Um and our design vision for the project is a commercial village

atmosphere. So the project is designed to respond to the needs of Bowfort and down east by bringing together important goods and services, creative business innovation in a mixeduse setting. So our

focus would want to be on live, work, convenience, walkability, open spaces, and community engagement. Um, our vision will include unified architecture, generous coastal landscape, and a polished

streetscape. Yeah, the the services for Bowford that we see that are needed are uh daily essentials which is grocery, convenient store, uh retail, professional services under the headline of health

and wellness. We're thinking medical offices, fitness center, wellness providers under family needs, child care, entertainment, and community. And under office, professional, commercial, governmental

and institutional. And in in the community side, recreation, open space, and events. And the visitor services would be lodging, dining, and hospitality services. Now, the marketplace is going to

dictate who is going to want to be there. However, we're trying to anticipate what the needs are for the entire community >> and we want this project to have incredible community value and a stronger

tax base is only going to be part of the story. Um, so starting with location, access and visibility. Of course, you already know we have the 80acre project, US70 and highway 101. It's an ideally

regionally based commercial project. It could it has three points of access off 101 and 3,300 linear feet of frontage along US70. Um jobs and economic development super important here. A marketdriven

commercial project creates local jobs, economic development and business innovation opportunities. Community partnership. We think that working with the town of Bowfort and the airport could be

mutually beneficial for the infrastructure needs such as roadways, storm water and utilities etc. Um service delivery value. So studies have shown that commercial properties generate municipal revenue

at a significantly more efficient rate than residential properties as well as the additional revenue that will come from sales tax site design. So this largecale project will provide the opportunity

to unify a design um through architecture and landscape. We want think it can provide for the integration of environmental, social and economic sustainability. >> Yes. And in closing, number one, by

reszoning this property as requested, we will have the confidence and the support of the town to take this project to the commercial marketplace. Without it, we don't have much to offer based on the

current zoning condition. And number two, this is not the endall of all your approvals. We will be required to submit detailed site plans to the staff, the planning board, and the board of

commissioners for approval. All related land use permits for construction will be required. Thank you. And any questions? >> Can you please put up the area map that you show where you want to res? So

the red outline of all that you like to res >> you see the d you see the dotted uh properties. >> Yes, sir. That's it. current. >> So is this map, the town's map is >> Yes, sir. That's it. >> That's a

little misleading. >> Okay. >> Um, do you know, and maybe town knows what portion of this property is currently within the town of Bowford? >> Yes. >> Not the ETJ, I mean the proper town, >> the

actual property. I believe there's about 20 acres that are already in in the town. that we've we've are in yeah currently in the town that we >> but request for annexation is not part of this request

for zoning >> not not for this reasonzoning we're doing that separate annexation uh with the town board questions of the applicant >> thank you for having What? >> They showed a lot of residential

component. It's really a question. >> Yeah, we don't anticipate u a large degree of a residential in this project. Perhaps we might do a live work having residential above some commercial, but we have

yet to get to that point in our in our plan. >> As you probably are aware, the B1 really doesn't make an allowance for residential. >> That's correct. >> So, that's a good point. So, are they allowed

to have residential above retail in B1. >> I I think that that might be >> question. >> He's ready. >> Yeah. All right. >> Um so I included those sections in the agenda packet. Mixed use is a special

use permit. Um though depending on the types of approvals they go for. If they do a planned unit development, something like that, they're already going to be going through a quasi judicial process.

Um so it's either special use permit plan unit development some sort of negotiation process is going to happen for that and mixed use is residential or office above with commercial retail etc below >>

and Michelle that I don't expect you to know this right off the top of your head but in planned unit development if they came forward with a plan for a planned unit development will it have uh a

expiration date or will be allowed in perpetuity as Bo Coast was. >> I think that that may be something that the board could the board of commissioners could consider as part of the phasing uh sunset

of that. I think state statute site specific development plan is two years. I don't know if our ordinance has allowances for um expiration or not. Um, but given the special use permits that we've

discussed recently, I think the board is interested in seeing some closure to those projects, especially given Bow Coast and Bover Club. >> Thank you. >> The future land use changes, is that a common

happening? >> We've got a brand new land use plan, so it's a little less common now. Um, usually if you have an old land use plan, you start seeing those changes need more because the land use plan

doesn't reflect the needs of the community anymore. Um, so it's not uncommon to adjust it. What it's saying is we've got this guiding map where we generally want to see our land uses. If it's going to

change, it needs to be here. But they understand things are going to change and we're going to change our minds and say, "No, you know what? really the best future land uses for this area could be

this or this. So, a reasonzoning um that's inconsistent with the land use plan has to concurrently amend the land use plan because we have a camel land use plan >> and we just do that at the town

level. We don't have to go back to camo. >> We do. Um so that's that's the the certification process. It doesn't go back through CRC reertification. It's just an amendment process. Um, so it's a much

smaller process at the state level than we did before, but there are special uh public hearing notice and and um special documentation that we have to go through for that type of reasonzoning that we

didn't have to for last month's. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Um, the three parcels that are requested tonight, if we approve changing those or recommend changing those to B1, does that put the

entire 80acre parcel in B1? >> I don't think so. Does it? >> They've got several sections. The only ones that we're looking at tonight are the ones shown in the little map. There's there's some

sections that they do or don't own that are or are not in city limits. Some pieces they're asking for annexation. That public hearing would be in October. Ideally, similar timing to this public

hearing for resoning in October. So, a lot of discussion on that item would happen at the same meeting. So, there's a couple of different pieces coming together. Um, at at this point tonight, we're

just looking at these three different cases. >> Is the annexation request for larger than these three parcels? >> Is it for more >> in in number or in space? >> So there are there are >> there are

more parcels I believe going for annexation. Some are in, some are out. I don't know the nature of those annexations run with the town clerk. Um, so I'm aware of them, but I'm not up to snuff on them.

>> And if we recommend to the commissioners and they approve a change of this to B1, anyone could develop those these three parcels, B1, and we would not necessarily see the site plan again if they

don't propose residential. Is that accurate? >> No. So site plan for anything over 5,000 square feet for commercial that kind of thing is going to trigger the need for a site plan review. So you would

see that again um for most of it if they're subdividing the land we might see another one. So you will very likely see this again. you will probably get sick of seeing them because you guys will, you

know, really look through it with a fine tooth comb and and get a really good idea of all the different phases of this project. So, this is kind of one of the the first pieces of this and you'll see

this come back through um either for a site plan, a plan unit development, special use permit, some sort of way will come back before you. >> Thank you. Can I ask the applicant a question? >> I

appreciate the uh presentation because we don't even usually see those kinds of things. So, you know, just to get a, you know, a little bit of a peak inside of what you may be thinking about. >> Yes,

sir. >> So, I I do appreciate that. And um and you said all the right things or between the two of you, you said all the right things about walkability and open space and >> you know and and all of

the the right things that you would think about in a mixeduse uh project. Um, are you are you beyond this point at from a conceptual perspective in the design process? No. The the where we're at is we

would like to have the reszoning done which gives us the ability to go to the marketplace with confidence. Then we'll find what tenants, what users, uh how that will all kind of come together and uh

that will be when we actually do the site plan, building location, roadways, utilities, storm water, all that comes together after we go to market and actually uh get users lined up for this project.

>> And the image that you showed of the streetscape and the buildings. Yep. >> Quite nice. Um, is is that sort of the thinking that that style, that type of architecture? >> Here's where we've we're

coming from on this this deal. We want to have a main street, if you're familiar with what a main street concept is, where you have parking on each side. Uh, and that'll be a portion of the overall

development. But that would create that uh that look that Bowford Main Street look. That's what our vision is. >> The marketplace is going to dictate a lot of this. Um and we certainly don't want to

be tied down to a specific uh concept, but that's our vision currently. >> Question. >> Yes, sir. If I'm understanding this correctly and putting all the pieces together off the screen that's being

shown currently, the portion on the furthest based on the TV north aspect of it um is B1 already. >> Yes. >> And y'all already own that, >> correct? So total this would be about 83 acres worth of

based on what you've already own you own now and what you're trying to resone to be one 80 acres. Yes sir. >> It'll be what all the other stuff. So about 83 total acres. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And of

which 28 we're asking to be reszoned. And you were mentioning, I don't need to get in the weeds about the uh annexation, but that's 16 acres of annex property that we're we're asking for. >> Would you

clarify? You're asking to annex only 16 acres. >> Yes. Yes. Because several there's several properties that we already are in the town and paying taxes on. >> So, we're just building on what we have

existing. But I'll remind this is a resoning here, not anything to do with annexation, >> right? I understand. >> I think yeah, you know, kind of get lost from the application. It's a reasonzoning and

it's fairly straightforward that >> got portions of it already be one. >> It's probably not highly suitable along the highway and Highway 70 in that location for residential. somewhat compliance with

the land use plan. It's fairly straightforwarding application. >> Have you had some neighborhood meetings? >> No, haven't had any neighborhood meetings. >> Have you had any push back from neighbors?

>> No, not so far. >> There's some chatter on >> It never is posted. >> Zonings are never posted. They're not posted. I understand that. >> Yeah. They don't get posted till they go to the board of

commissioners. Then it gets posted. >> And you're not going to get >> for the neighbors until that >> Well, well, no. I I understand that. What I'm asking is, have you reached out to your neighbors?

>> I have not. >> Well, it's public now. Are there any further questions of the applicant >> or of staff before we go to discussion? >> Thank you. >> All right. So, I know I have lots of thoughts, but

I'll >> let you guys go first. Jeff >> pointing at you. >> I'm good. So, um I guess my only concern is we're being asked for a zoning change and it seems that certainly the business use relies on the

approval of the board of commissioners to annex additional property. If they don't annex property and this doesn't come to fruition, why are we changing the zoning? Um, I don't know. That that's my

only reservation. And maybe we could address that with recommending to the board of commissioners that the zoning be changed provided that they approve the annexation. >> There are B1 property. I

mean, you can't have B1 in the ETJ and have a business on it. You just >> don't get sewer, >> right? >> Right. >> So, I mean, it's not outside the bounds of reason that it would still be useful as

zoning change without an annexation. Either way, we have to >> Yeah. >> look at it either way. >> Okay. >> That and the parcel split portions of it are already B1. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It was a It was a

commercial nursery if I recall. And a little bit of that property is still on the other side of the bypass. >> Yeah. Tail or what used to be. Um George I mean I see I see great value in this uh for

the for the town. Um, I saw great value in another project that was wanting to do something similar, but um I I know that the board of commissioners is very reluctant to um they have been at least

reluctant to annex. So, it it'll be interesting. Um I think Bowford absolutely needs commercial tax base. Um you know residential tax base is okay but it doesn't it's not it's not commercial tax base.

Um it's at the it it you know it's at a major intersection. um and it's identified in the gateway master plan as uh something similar to this. So I I'm not sure I have a complete understanding of how

the all the parcels work, the ones that are we're looking at tonight and the ones that the additional ones that they own. Somebody could clarify that for me, >> but it doesn't matter. >> Well, it

matters to me. I'm just >> They can say anything they want. You just have to take every possible use in every scenario. >> I understand. But there's they presented it as 80 acres and that's why I'm

asking the question scaling it. Can somebody answer that question? >> So Josh Edmonson. So yeah, just so you're clear, that 80 acres is the entirety that Bowfort Crossing owns. Um what we're asking

the reszoning for is what you see on the screen. Um further to the we'll just say east. Um, we own parcels there too that are approximately um, gosh, I don't know, is that an additional 30 acres? >>

30 acres. Um, that is to be determined what we're going to do with that. Um, that very well could be coming before you as part of a reszone or even maybe a PUD at some point in time, but we're we have

no intention of that. One reason is is because of the the airport expansion. Um there's some property potential property swaps that Mr. Baron's working on with the airport in that area that we just

don't know about yet. So that's why that area is being left out. But that additional 30 acres is part of the vision for what we're requesting the resoning for tonight if that makes sense. >> See there

is a story right? >> So >> could you clarify what is being requested to be annexed? Um, so yes, sir. The um, see if I can go off memory here. Uh, the parcel in blue that you see there, that is

requested to be annexed. The red parcel is requested to be annexed. And let's see, Michelle, can you help me? Do you remember the other one? the the parcel just the parcel south of the blue parcel. >>

Yeah, >> Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong. >> We own that. So, that's going to be annexed as well. That's already um >> zoned properly. And then there's a bigger piece somewhere because we have 16 and a

half total acres in this request. I I Oh, I know what parcel it is. It is the R5 RC5 parcel I believe is the other annexation is the annexation request. If if I'm understanding correctly, the portion

in yellow is how many acres? >> Oh, that's give or take >> 17.85. >> 17. I don't have it in front of me. >> 17. No, 17.85. And is that within the town limit or that is not? >> A portion of that is

within the town. A portion is not. >> So I believe the the portion of the property on on the reszoning map that portion that was RC5 if I remember correctly that is not in the town and that is part of

the annexation request. >> And that 17 almost roughly 18 acres is part of a what a 78 acre track total. Uh, no. It is one. It is Well, I mean it's one parcel in the 80 acres that they own. Yes, that

is correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, that leaves 60 acres that are Okay. Can you go to your map of what the development like in the presentation y'all had for development wise, how this is going to be

done? So in that that red part port portion there that's the outline of potentially phase one is this initial phase. Phase two is in the orange and then there's a phase three portion that would be to

the north that's down the road. So, we're only talking about that phase one portion. Um, not the portion that's remaining in orange. That would be at a later date and probably a more um at that point

we'd have a great idea of uh street setup end users where we would probably be submitting some type of PUD at that point. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Thoughts? >> Uh well, for Yeah, for now. >> Uh oh, >> I

don't have questions for the applicant. >> Just want to make this clear that this is a long-term project. This could provide this community with businesses and innovation opportunities. um retail

goods and services over a we're thinking five, seven, 10 years as a buildout. So this will be in front I hope I live to see it. That's that's my hope. >> U but it will be a phased project. >> Yes. >>

Thank you. >> Okay. I'm I'm siding with Vic. It's like we're reszoning stuff, but the annexation hasn't happened yet. So, if for some reason this doesn't go through in the 5, 7, 10 years, now this is

zone B1. What's going to be built there? They could build anything that's on that zone. And then going back to the presentation of the they let horse out for the cart. That's 3,300 feet of a back of a

plaza on Highway 70. Does that fit with the GMP that George talks about all the time? Is that what we want to see when all the visitors are coming in is a back of a plaza? >> I'll remind the board the

development is not part of this request. It's only the reasonzoning. And if you the decision of the resoning on the development to come, that's not good practice. Just got to look at the land use

plan, what's in the ordinance currently and and kind of go from there >> and the permitted uses. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um I'm just going back to a future land use map. It was created in the idea of this

being rural like working land like just maintaining it as more vacant land. What was the idea for that? And we make the decision to reszone it. You've completely lost 80 acres of land you'll never get

back. And that's just a like the 20 acres or so that's being looked at tonight is all trees. So you've lost all that nature. >> And why did they make the future land use map the way they did? I'm

looking at it as to preserve it, not to >> I'm sorry. What did you say? So the future land use map currently the I'm qu I'm just looking at why would they have made why would that have been designed

the way it is currently to preserve that you vote to make this business yes it brings commerce but you've also lost 80 acres you could never get back as far as nature wise and I think that's part of

what Bowford's founded on honestly ly this historic is uh that type of town. Every conversation we've had in a year has been about trees, plants, vegetation, and now you're going to vote to disrupt 80

acres completely. It's something worth considering. And I know Michelle's saying that and it is true. You can't base it on reszoning it, what businesses can be, but you have to accept the fact that

once you make it a business, they could sell it tomorrow and it could be anything within that basically. So it's got to be considered. >> Thank you. Um question Michelle. So in the past, distant past,

these have often come to us as um the annexation request and the resoning have come together. >> I mean, >> planning board never looks at annexation. >> Uh but they've requested um contingent

resonings. >> Okay. >> We've I mean I know we've had contingent resonings in the past where they're requesting that the the town they only want the resoning if they also get the annexation at the same

park. And I just was a little curious why in this case it wasn't the uh reasonzoning contingent on annexation. >> I think that they're just asking for them concurrently um >> or not concurrently. >>

They well they would be going to public hearing in the same meeting. >> Okay. >> Um yes. So they'll assuming we get a recommendation tonight, they would go on the October 12th board of commissioners

meeting where the board has also called for a public hearing for the annexations. So both of those would be decided in the same meeting and they could consider um some sort of tying together. Um

they're not all the reasonzonings and all the uh annexations are not the same parcels. Some are in, some are out of both ways. So they weren't um interrelated enough I think. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Um, yeah, I know a lot of the, you know, the zoning in this area is a mess because a lot of it was reszoned before the bypass, the route of the bypass was even known. I mean, I remember the I think I

was on the board that did the RC5 um resoning. So, it is a bit of a mess. The the B1 section, I believe, was a commercial nursery for a while that's provided plants to the Mercer development. So,

there's some bit of history here. Um, I'll put my my thoughts on this. Um, and I have a couple for for a project as large as this. Uh, because it's just a resoning, we just look at the permissive

possible uses. But for as project as large as this, I think it would be more appropriate if it were a PUD where the town would have a bit more control on what went in there at this point. Once it's B1

and it's annexed, it could be strip shopping centers. It could be, >> you know, it could be anything. And I'm not gonna speculate on what it could be. It could be beautiful. It could be a town, you

know, it could be look just like that picture they had there, but it really could be anything. Um, the thing that worries me more is that the town has a commercial center on Live Oak Street. And I

think there are thousands and maybe tens of thousands of examples of towns that have had new commercial developments on their bypass and that's the death nail for their existing commercial. Um, that's

a recipe for empty storefronts and sort of undeveloped, left behind property, which, you know, if if you look at Live Oak right now, and there's certainly not 80 acres of undeveloped land, but there's

still a pretty substantial amount of of undeveloped land on Live Oak, and no one's going to claim that the property that has been developed is utilized to its maximum effect. Um, I think by diluting

that and having a new um a new third center of commerce in town, you would, you know, they might have a nice new grocery store out here, but does that mean that one of our existing grocery stores is

going to close and um, you know, be an empty storefront? So, in the end, this is a decision for our uh commissioners to make, but um you know, I I don't see this as in the best interests of the town

as we have it today. I think, you know, certainly there have been many occasions where we have voted to um change the land use plan, but I mean, we just did it recently down here. We suggested one but

in that case the land use plan was in the adjacent property was okay. So we were just sort of bumping the land use plan out a bit. This the current land the village center I don't know how many acres

just a couple of acres of village use there right at the intersection. This is a massive change to the future land development of this town. And um to just zone it B1 and leave it up to the market is

um something that that I don't know that I would be comfortable with or I would say I am not comfortable with that. If it was a PUD um where the town had more control, that would be a different

matter. But uh just a reasonzoning without on on such a major and impactful piece of property the town. >> Is there a reason PUB wasn't considered? Uh it's very premature to P be a PU to even have a

PUB without knowing the market that we're entering. Um we could design something very beautiful. We could lay out something very beautiful and have to come back and get a a prov plan changed 10 times

based on that end user. Um if we didn't have to submit a a plan and we could just submit a set of standards. um we we could most definitely make that happen. We just it's way too premature to to try

to set up this site um without knowing, you know, in in market users and then having to come back before you guys with major changes five, 10, 15 times. We just, you know, we we don't know. Again,

we're just asking for the reasonzoning to simply get to market. Like I said, you again, you're looking at us, what can be used for. You don't have to believe us because we could we could sell it. We

could do whatever. However, as this grows and we gain more confidence, we can come back with a PUD reszoning. Again, not something you guys you guys are taking my word on it, which you know, you

shouldn't do. I'm just telling you that's why we can't do a PUD at this point. It's just there would be too many changes that have to happen over time as we get going based on site specific um needs

and necessities by the end users for us to put a plan forward that we feel confident we wouldn't have to come back to you with changes um you know like I said several times and to my knowledge there's

no mechanism in the ordinance to do a PD without submitting some type of concept again if we were just talking about submitting a list of development standards um commercial uh exterior stand whatever

you know both requires we could certainly do that. The problem is trying to submit a concept that fit is going to fit the need of those end users without us having to make significant changes to

potential street layout, infrastructure layout, storm water layout. Uh it's just it's it's a little bit premature. Well, a PUD wouldn't require all that. A PUD based >> doesn't require all that. But

what Michelle, what does your PUD require? >> It it it at a minimum requires street layout, building layouts. And again, we could plan for a 10,000 square foot commercial user and it ends up being

15,000. And it doesn't just change the building size, it changes how we laid out that street. It changes out how we plan infrastructure. So again, that's that's our reason for not doing a PUD at this

time. >> Um maybe >> the pictures are great and the presentation was wonderful. I if that is what happens in the future, that will be wonderful. I still think perhaps we're putting the cart in front

of the horse. If we switch the R20 to a B1, that automatically allows more coverage, >> less trees. I mean, a halfacre lots would barely show in there, but B1, they could come in and build an

industrial park and it would be legit. So much of this to me relies on how the whole project is going to get pulled together and that relies on the annexation. Um I don't see that what we're being

asked for tonight is so time critical. I'd like to hear what the residents of the town think about this kind of project. If everybody supports this and said, "Yes, this is the direction we want to go,

the board of commissioners supports it, I wouldn't have a an objection to the reszoning because at that point annexation will occur, they'll have sewage um and it can handle the entire site. It just

seems that we're early in the game for deciding if these parcels here should get changed and we could table this. Um I don't think it's and see how the public hearing goes. Um we don't have to act on

it at all. We could table it or we could deny it for now and they can come back when the project is more fully developed. Are you talking about the public hearing for the annexation? >> Yes. >> Yeah.

>> Which would be at the commissioner's meeting along with this if we decide >> unless we right >> but I wouldn't think there'd be much purpose in tableabling this that I mean we're not looking for

more information. Um >> correct >> that commissioners could table it. I don't know that that would be doing the commissioners of service table it. Um but question for council. Um, yes. >> Uh, let's

see. So, years ago, we had a development that came in right before, so we're working on a new UDO. And years ago, we had a a um someone that came in right before the current LDO was going to be uh

implemented and asked for a some I forget the term. I'll get this wrong, but something about vested rights in the previous with the new UDO coming up and this being a long-term project. Could this

applicant once they had there be one get the vested right to the current LDO? >> Um not necessarily just from a reasonzoning. it it takes more uh more detail than that. You've got to have, you know,

there's a sightsp specific vesting plan that's based on more approvals. But just a simple reasonzoning does not lock in everything under the current LDO if the LDO was to change say tomorrow. Now,

once they get their reszoning and continue to make progress on their project, yes, at some point they'll hit the stage that they'll be vested under the current version instead of the new version. But

it's hard for me to sit here and tell you exactly when that would occur based on um the way their develop development may proceed or not, types of approvals they'll seek, state and federal permits and

things like that. >> So if our new UDO is still two years off, it is conceivable that if they start some development, they could claim vested um they're vested in the >> Yes. Yes, sir. And that's what

the I think the Margaritavville Hotel did. They were built under the pre9 pre203 rules. They had a vested right to that. Thank you. Um so what's the I think you know this is obviously a very political

thing. This is a a large change to the town and um the commissioners are the ones who have to make the hard decisions. We just make recommendations. Um, so, uh, I mean, I'm very conflicted because it

I mean, I've led and master plan and designed projects of this size and much much bigger and and taken them through the zoning process and um, I I honestly can't remember a time in all of those

zonings that we went for a reasonzoning without some understanding of what the project was going to be and and what type of uses there were going to be and what uh the specific sometimes even the

specific users were going to be. Um, and that's why I would be so much more comfortable, I think, with the PUD. Um, I mean, Bow Coast is how I don't know how many times they've come back here, right?

Uh, and they went through the 2008 crash. Um I you know I I mean like I said before I I think commercial uh I think commercial tax bases will be good for the town. I realize we have commercial along

uh Live Oak. It's pretty It's not great looking for a for a major corridor. Um and and I you know and I I I fear that uh I fear that the town is going to suffer without commercial tax base in the

future, if not soon. Um, but I have a I I'm just very conflicted about approving uh or recommending approval of a of a zoning district that is so broad in terms of the uses. Um, and and it, believe

me, this is nothing against the the applicant. I mean, I'm I'm sure you're, you know, very very focused on what you think this this could be, but I'm worried about what it could be if you're not here.

Um, I've kind of flip-flopped through this uh through just sitting here tonight and um so I I I'm just very conflicted. As a matter of bookkeeping, we will have there are three properties and so we

would need um three motions. Although I suppose we could make a motion to do all three at once if >> yes you you can address all three applications >> in a single motion. >> Okay. So if somebody like

to make a motion they can do all three at once. >> I just I just want to say one part to this is it's just something to look at. If you consider what this property is asking and what Highway 70 has

going for it already. Um, if you look at the land that Carter County has bought and proposed for their transitions of some government functions over there, if you look at what the airport already owns

and what their proposal is, is this potentially maybe an inevitable thing in 15 years or so? Maybe. But I can't see that this is the time to make this a business district and potentially lose every

bit of the beautifification you have there on that side of the road. What's left in Bowford because what's gone is already gone. And as you already mentioned down live oak there's tons of vacant

spaces already that could be utilized to build a project. I know starting from scratch versus redoing what's already present financially and difficult to deserve there. You have to agree to that. But

to just get rid of potentially 80 acres of the last remaining trees other than what's in the historic district that can't be touched, you're taking a gamble and I don't think it's one that's worth

what Bowford's founded on. As I look through um just going back and the proposed change in accordance with Buffer's uh comprehensive Camelan use plan, one of the objectives is to continue to beautify

Buffford, preserve the character that Bowfort's built. I think you're losing it. So I I make the motion that all three parcels stay the way they are and aren't resoneed. >> So motion to deny on all

three. >> Any does he need a second? And >> discussion. Yeah, >> there's a second. >> A second. >> Okay. Um, I was going to say further discussion, but I is would it be worth adding any additional

clarification to that uh in order to give more information to the um commissioners as to the reasoning? >> Yeah. Um, >> on that just rather they don't they don't just see a yes or no. They may might

be more constructive if they uh >> have some some reasons there. >> I'll point to the agenda packet. The last piece of each of these is the resolution of plan consistency which I'll tool up to match

discussion tonight and if you direct Ryan to sign it afterwards. One of them is uh the planning board further finds that the proposed reasonzoning is or is not reasonable and in the public interest

because blank. >> Okay. >> So I can discern that from the conversation or if you want to identify that specifically. >> Do we have that on a slide? >> Don't have it on the slide. That would be good.

>> Or do you have do you have your packet there? I can't get it. >> It's in the packet. Oh, here we Oh, here. I'll pass it down. So, >> you want to make that as part of your motion? >> That would see

like >> that way. We can >> Yeah. So, that was the resolution gives a couple of decision points. So, it can go yes or no. We can tool it up and sign it uh sign it later. Um but it's consistent with

the way that 160D wants us to consider these resonings. >> Okay. >> Um okay. So in the sense of the planning board does not recommend the approval um from R20 to B1. Um I add to that the reasons being

not to approve the reasonzoning being it doesn't continue with the beautifification of Bowfort. It doesn't preserve the character of Buffford's built environment. Um it doesn't um support some of the

small businesses that are here. Making housing more diverse and affordable. How does that add to housing there? Um it's one of the objectives reducing the vulnerability by utilizing guidance from the

future land use map goes completely against that and then then respecting the existing neighborhoods. It completely disregards everybody on what would it be? Family Lane, June Bug, Bunch Road, all of

it. >> Okay. All right. So, we have that in the form of a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. So, we have a motion to deny and a second. Um, any further discussion? >> I'd like to

offer a sec another motion. >> Another an amendment. >> No, not an amendment. a new >> I think we have to deal with the motion on the table before we go to a new motion unless you would ask like to

ask him >> as part of discussion you can always ask him to withdraw his motion >> but um until we've dealt with that >> motion I think >> I don't comment >> I don't think so well I want maketh clear

this up first because if I if I want to offer us another motion Um the only the only way that it would not move forward is if there was not a second. Is that true? >> Uh you already said >> you have

to have to deal with the motion on the floor um before you offer a second motion. There are certain procedural motions that take precedence like a motion to table. But if it's touching the subject of

the matter, um it's out of order unfortunately, you can ask Mr. White if he would consider amending his motion. And then assuming the second is renewed by Mr. Patton, that might be a way to get to

where I think he might be going. Well, >> propose a motion in case this one doesn't pass. >> See, that's not how I remember it. But >> I I thought you could offer a substitute motion and that would

have to be voted on if it doesn't pass and it reverts back to the original motion. in all of this, can't you just simply >> while there's just >> No, I'm just saying while there's the comment like

conversation for discussion, >> you can lay out your proposed changes for sure. >> Well, first of all, I you know, I'm not it doesn't it land you land use maps are changed all the time, >> you know. I

mean, I know this one's relatively recent, but land use plans are changed. there. It's a plan, >> but there's a scale to the change. >> Well, I understand that. I mean, that 80 acres in the town of

Bowford's a big a big chunk of land, you know, and some municipalities not, you know, but I understand that. So, I don't have an issue, you know, if if if all the cards were in the right place, I

wouldn't have an issue changing the the plan. Um, I think my biggest concern with a project like this is that there's no community input, that the applicant hasn't reached out to its neighbors. Um, I

think that's the right thing to do. Um, I think it's the right thing to do to have a community meeting or more. Um, and so for that reason, I would want to table this and ask the applicant to reach

out to neighbors to have a community meeting. um you know before we consider it again and I don't know if the applicant would agree to that. >> Mr. Chairman, we've got a motion on the floor and I

think we need to act. >> No, we don't. >> Yeah, we do. >> No, we don't. >> We have a We have a motion and a second. >> We do have a motion and a second. >> And it's open for discussion. >> And it's

open for discussion. >> Yeah. So, we can still have discussion. Um, I mean, I might suggest the amendment that the board has um concerns with the lack of public input and to the project. I mean, they

can always come back and ask for it again. They can ask for a reason again. There's no, you know, there's nothing preventing them from having community discussion and then requesting a reszoning again

in the future. You don't you get don't just get one chance. >> Yeah. But is there a waiting period if it's if it >> No, there's no waiting period. So, we could amend the motion if Cameron's willing to

say that um we don't recommend this for approval because we feel there has not been adequate public input. The definition of the project regarding annexation has not been defined and any other

condition we want to put on it. Right? That doesn't prevent them from coming back. I mean it's a nice project and they can come back but I feel like we want to see the whole project or at least what

piece is definitely moving forward. Mhm. >> So would you be aminable to an amendment like that to your motion? >> So my my whole thing is tonight they're asking for resonings. >> Yeah. But I think we

need to express to the commissioners what our >> and what I'm what I'm getting at with this is um what's proposed tonight. I don't see how reszoning that is in the best interest of Bowford and >> what

Bowford's laid on. Um, also with that being the applicant, the planning board doesn't have the final say. So if the applicant says, "Hey, there's conversation of public interest." And they get all the

public interest needed between us and the board of commissioners. They take that to them and that's part of the board of commissioners thoughts. That may be good moving forward because the board of

commissioners holds a public hearing and the planning board doesn't. >> So, you wouldn't necessarily want to go out and get public outreach, get people coming to the meeting to this meeting and then

being frustrated that they don't get their time at the podium um the way they would at a board of commissioners meeting. So, that that might be a good um middle road. >> So, that's what I'm that's why

I'm saying like we're we have two four six people here. If 2,00 people from Bowford say it's a great idea, well, 2,000 overrule six all day long in my opinion. So, I don't see how um that if that's a

short >> conversation for him, then it's you you say shortsighted, but I don't think a project like this will not be completed in some point in Bowford. I just don't see it being now where Bowford is

currently at. to vote for this to be redis reszone. So I stay with my motion. >> Okay. So well we have a motion and a second and um any further discussion. All right. All in favor of the motion uh

raise your hand and >> all opposed. >> Okay. Okay. >> And there will be a public hearing at the commissioners >> October 12th, >> right? >> In October. >> Yeah. >> All right. On to our next uh

parking. We'll talk about parking. >> Parking. Okay. Uh so we have a staff initiated text amendment to the LDO uh for state compliance with off- streetet parking minimums. Uh new state law put into

play in July limits local government's authority to require parking minimums. Now, this doesn't apply to coastal communities, including Carter County communities, but it does include historic

properties in those communities. So, it only applies in Bowurt's historic areas. in Bowfort. That is a relatively broad area because the uh statute requires the local district or national district

which means our national district and it also includes our study list properties uh local landmarks um things of that nature. So, we um ARE has put together our amendments and I'm sorry the version in

the packet didn't have the underlines and everything like this. You got the clean version. So, this is the uh redlinined version which shows the um newly drafted exemptions which AR drafted based on

that state statute for consistency um with that language. Now, including this in our LDO by January 1 is required by statute. Um, so this gives us a little bit of time to address how how this affects

Bowfort. I have a a enlarged map um showing some of the affected properties. Um and then we've got the resolution of plan consistency um towards the end as far as the decision point is concerned. >>

Not a whole lot to talk about on this one. >> That is all the all is what is required of us. Um >> that is the dimensional requirement. Yes. >> For off streetet parking spaces. >> Number of parking

spaces um in a parking lot. So it's not it's not the size of the parking space. We're already in compliance with that part. It's we would no we no longer have the ability to leverage a minimum number

of parking spaces for uses in these areas. Now other communities in North Carolina it applies fully. It only applies to coastal communities historic areas. So our national registered district are

local districts inside our national registered district. Um and then national register places like the bunk house. Um we've got study list, uh local landmarks. Um so it this is all in one section of

town basically. >> This is your recommended >> change. >> Yes. Yes. The attorney drafted these based on state statute language. If we were in an inland county, I think we might be deleting the whole

section >> on parking, right? >> Yeah. Or grass. >> Is there any understanding as to why it doesn't apply to coastal communities? >> Didn't look into it or why it applies to historic and coastal

communities. There's got to be a story there. I didn't go looking for it, but >> I have heard that it it does not apply to coastal communities because they get a high degree of tourism and a high

degree of influx of second homers and therefore those parking places are needed. >> That's what I've heard. >> It's as good as any story I've heard. >> Yeah. But a mall with four parking places is

going to be a heck of a problem. And um the the Coats Canon's blog that I sent out earlier today poses a good point. Lenders are going to require minimum number of parking spaces. Certain developers

are going to require it. You want parking spaces at your business. They're going to have parking. It's just not going to be based on what we tell them. Um so that's that's kind of the change. It's up

to the developer to decide how many places they need in these areas. So this law wouldn't preclude us from eliminating parking minimums if we wanted to. Correct. >> That's correct. Is correct? >> Yes.

>> So my question, and this might be a question for staff. Um, table, we have table 13.1 that comes right after this that has all the different uses, some of which are kind of odd, >> which don't

match the use table, >> which right? And um we have until January. >> Mhm. >> And the UDO is a couple years off. >> Would this be a simple little project to also roll table 131 into this and see if we

want to do any tweaks there or is that a bigger project than we want to get involved in? At this time, >> I would say eliminating parking minimums across the whole town would be completely fine. That

would be allowing my concern would be running a foul of any downzoning conversations because if you're inadvertently requiring more parking spaces for a use than was previously required then that

might be trouble down the road. >> I was looking at it from a view of requiring less parking than we currently do. Mhm. >> Um, >> and maybe this is an opportunity, maybe it's too tight, you know,

maybe we don't really have the opportunity, but my question for staff was, do we have the opportunity to um reduce the requirements in table 13? >> We >> or is that asking too much of staff? >> It's

not asking too much. I just don't know if there's a a reason to do it now versus when the UDO comes versus any other requirement in the ordinance, which we could tighten up or loosen or anything like

that. We we could get in there and do some work and not have any trouble with 382. Um, you know, we could we could do that with a lot of places in the ordinance, do some cleanups. Uh this is kind of

just bare minimum required to not move the ball in anyone's court on the LDO. >> Yeah. >> Interestingly enough, I will point out that on my new building at 406 Live Oak, I put in the town required

parking and the single largest complaint I get is there's not enough parking >> just with the minimum gap. >> Right. Mr. >> Chairman, I would recommend we We have We have a second. Any further

discussion? >> All in favor? >> All opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. >> We'll still have parking. All right. And I think we are now at board comments. If I don't start. No. Thank you

again, Michelle and Charlie for the presentations. Good. >> I'm good. Thank you. >> All right. U Thank you, Michelle. Thank you, town staff. Thank Charlie. Uh thank you for the presenters that were

here. They they left now. But presentation was great, but it let us off than what we were supposed to be doing. We're just doing a zoning change. So, um that was it. any comments? >> Yeah, I mean I

want to thank staff for a great packet and great work on on a um an interesting uh request and thank the board for looking past the pretty pictures and looking at just it's just just a zoning request

and um while there's a lot of other facets to it sometimes um we're just changing the zoning or being asked to change the zoning. And with that, oh, uh, staff, um, staff comments. >> Thank you,

Michelle, for a great presentation. Thank you, Laurel, for taking minutes. Thank you, Brad. And thank you, Harry, for protecting us. >> Um, I will plug as far as uh required compliance, next month, we

will be looking at our flood damage prevention ordinance. We're going to be moving forward with that separately from the UDO. Right now, it's still a standalone ordinance. Um, we've got to update it

to come into compliance with uh some updates in the state model ordinance for coastal Azones, which are going to be going effective February 2027. Um, so we'll have some more required amendments

coming forward next month there, which do have some optional language in them. >> Yes, sir. >> Two foot. Uh we're currently at a one foot recommending a two-foot. Lane use plan recommends a two-foot

that's still on the table. Other pieces of the amendments will be required. So that's one of the optional pieces. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. And if there's nothing further, I'll um entertain >> a

second. >> All in favor? I opposed. All right, we There we go. where they expect us to