2026-07-27 - Planning and Zoning Board

00:19What?

00:24Heat.

00:43Heat. N.

05:02>> [snorts]

05:03>> All right. Good evening and welcome to

05:04the planning and zoning board meeting.

05:06Thank you for joining us and I'll call

05:08this meeting to order. Our board clerk,

05:10Julie Mitchell, will take roll call this

05:12evening.

05:12>> Thank you, chair. For the record, the

05:15following uh board members are absent. S

05:18Camarada, Bosshana Etton, Andy Co, and

05:22Ruben Moore. The following are present.

05:26Chris Johnson,

05:28Mike Rosselli, Jeff Monreef, Shawn

05:31McAndrew, Diane Mayo, and Ken George.

05:35Thank you. [snorts] So, the Kerry

05:37Community Plan will continue to be the

05:39guiding document for this board. Our

05:42role is to function as citizen adviserss

05:44to the council who will ultimately make

05:46the final decision on all resoning

05:48activity. We recognize that all resoning

05:51requests are supported unanimously by

05:53the members of our community. We strive

05:55to balance the impact of increased

05:57building density required to support K's

05:59growth while maintaining the historic

06:01charm and character of Kerry. The Kerry

06:04community plan was initially adopted in

06:062017 following a collaborative effort

06:09between Kerry's citizens and our town

06:11government. That collaboration has

06:13continued and resulted in a recently

06:15updated version of the plan adopted by

06:17council in January of 2025. The chapters

06:20of the plan include

06:23live, work, shop, engage, shape, move,

06:27enrich, serve, and act. The community

06:31plan can be found on K's website. Your

06:34citizen opinions based on the Kerry

06:36community plan document play a very

06:37important role in advising our leaders.

06:40We encourage our citizens to refer to

06:42the plan and provide fe feedback that's

06:44based on the guiding principles of the

06:46plan as it relates to the zoning

06:48request. While this is a public meeting,

06:50it is not a public hearing. There's no

06:52opportunity for the public to speak

06:54during this meeting. If you have

06:55comments about any of these items, we

06:57encourage you to reach out directly to

06:59staff by email or phone. You may also

07:01reach out to the board members through

07:02email. may also contact council directly

07:05through email or during the public

07:07speaks out portion of any regularly

07:09scheduled account council meeting. These

07:11meetings are also streamed live on K's

07:14website and will be posted on YouTube.

07:16Past planning and zoning board meetings

07:18are available to view on YouTube as

07:19well. Uh now that we've gotten that out

07:22of the way, we're going to adopt our

07:23agenda agenda and would welcome someone

07:26to make a motion to approve the agenda

07:28out set out for tonight.

07:30>> So moved.

07:31>> And a second.

07:32>> Second. All those in favor, please state

07:34I. I.

07:35>> Any opposed? [snorts]

07:37>> And we have a couple of minutes to

07:39approve. And so, uh,

07:43yeah, I guess I'll do these

07:44independently. And so, the first is our

07:46March 23rd, 2026 meeting, regularly

07:49scheduled meeting. Uh, we need to

07:51approve those minutes. If someone would

07:53approve the, uh, motion or suggest a

07:55motion on that, I'd appreciate it.

07:56>> So, moved.

07:57>> And any second?

07:59>> Second.

08:00>> All right. All those in favor, please

08:01state I. I.

08:02>> I. Any opposed?

08:04>> All right. And then we also

08:05>> And I have a question before we move on

08:07on this one because I wasn't here and I

08:09don't think I can vote present. So

08:12>> yeah, I think I had the same issue with

08:14March uh as well. I was here for June.

08:16So um

08:19do u

08:19>> I didn't I didn't watch the meeting so I

08:21don't know if the that meeting [snorts]

08:23>> So can we can we pass it with just the

08:25five of us?

08:28Um, so as a board yours, even though you

08:30weren't here for that meeting, you can

08:31still vote on the minutes. And so if you

08:33hear from your colleagues that the

08:34minutes seem accurate to you, you can

08:36vote as well.

08:37>> Okay.

08:37>> Okay. Do you all think this accurate?

08:39>> Uh, if if you're okay. Yes, I did read

08:41them this afternoon, but so

08:43[clears throat] so we'll take a

08:44unanimous uh vote on that as I uh moving

08:48forward to the June 22nd minutes. I'm

08:51looking for a motion there.

08:52>> So move.

08:53>> Any second? [clears throat]

08:55>> Second.

08:55>> All right. All those in favor, please

08:57state I. I.

08:58>> Any opposed?

09:00>> All right, that moves us to our order of

09:01business for this evening. Um, we have a

09:05case 2516,

09:08Jacobs Creek Lane Reszoning. Uh,

09:12our case here is uh Rachel Smith will be

09:15the presenter on this. Following her

09:18presentation, the applicant will share

09:20their remarks. Board members will have

09:22an opportunity to ask questions of the

09:23staff and the applicant. Miss Smith,

09:26please proceed.

09:27>> Thank you. Good evening, board. The

09:30owner of approximately 8.99 acres

09:32addressed 4312 Jacobs Creek Lane

09:35requests the application of initial Town

09:37of Kerry zoning upon annexation.

09:41The property is located east of the

09:43Cadam and Wake County line and west of

09:45the American Tobacco Trail and White Oak

09:47Elementary School.

09:52The site is located a sixth of a mile

09:54west of the American Tobacco Trail,

09:57which is accessible via an existing

09:59greenway trail connection extending east

10:01from the Jasper Olive Road and Yates

10:03Road intersection.

10:05[snorts]

10:06Yates Road, a four-lane thoroughfare,

10:09provides access to the site. The

10:11applicant will extend Yates Road along

10:13the site's eastern boundary.

10:17You may recall the Courtyards at White

10:19Oak Reszoning approved last year, now

10:21known as the Courtyards at Jacob's

10:23Creek, a 55 and older age restricted

10:26community. This community is presently

10:29under development plan review and

10:31surrounds the subject property on three

10:33sides.

10:36This development will provide additional

10:38connectivity to the site via the

10:40extension of Mystic Seal Lane.

10:44The current zoning is Wake County

10:46residential 40 watershed or R40W

10:52and the applicant requests reszoning to

10:54carry residential 12 conditional use or

10:57R12CU

10:58with the Jordan Lake Wershed Protection

11:00Overlay District and the Conservation

11:02Residential Overlay District.

11:06The proposed zoning conditions include

11:08limiting the use to 16 detached

11:10dwellings, a minimum of 2400 square ft

11:14of community gathering space, and

11:16minimum lot size calculations will not

11:19include repairarian buffer areas.

11:23Buffer shall be in common open space and

11:25there will be sidewalks on both sides of

11:28all streets and Yates Road will be

11:30constructed to all applicable

11:32specifications.

11:35Because the courtyards at Jacob's Creek

11:37Development is expected to be built

11:39first, Mystic Seal Lane will initially

11:42terminate with a turnaround bulb at the

11:44courtyard's property line. The applicant

11:47will remove the turnaround bulb when

11:49they connect their development to Mystic

11:51Seal Lane.

11:54Staff has evaluated the request with the

11:56Imagine Carry Community Plan. The site

11:59is located within the green level

12:01special planning area neighborhoods west

12:03of Flat Branch sub area. This special

12:06planning area supports a gradual

12:08downward transition in density moving

12:11west from NC540 towards the Chattam

12:14County line with areas west of the flat

12:16branch stream not to exceed about 2.5

12:19dwelling units per acre.

12:22Additional policy guidance includes

12:24shielding development from streets,

12:26contextsensitive design, and a

12:28predominant land use of detached

12:30dwellings on a quarter acre or larger

12:32lots.

12:35The proposed 16 detached dwellings on

12:3712,000 foot minimum lots and the

12:40resulting density of 1.78 dwellings per

12:43acre is in keeping with the area's land

12:46use pattern and generally meets the

12:48policy guidance of the special planning

12:50area and the shape chapter for

12:52compatibility and transitions.

12:56The proposal would provide at least 2400

12:59square ft of community gathering area,

13:01which is twice the LDO requirement for a

13:04development of this size, which may help

13:06to promote open space and tree canopy

13:09preservation.

13:12Move chapter policies are generally met

13:14by the proposal's commitment to build

13:16sidewalk on all sites sides of

13:18subdivision streets where the LDO only

13:21requires one side for local streets. the

13:24removal of the mystic seal lane

13:26turnaround bulb and the extension of

13:28Yates Road as a multimotal street

13:30subject to all town specifications.

13:35A neighborhood meeting was held in

13:37February and six nearby residents

13:39attended. There were no direct questions

13:41or concerns related to the proposal,

13:44only a question about a different

13:45resoning. Staff has received

13:48intermittent emails with questions and

13:50concerns about existing and future

13:52traffic on Bachelor Road.

13:57A public hearing was held in June. There

14:00were no written comments and there were

14:02no in-person speakers. Council had

14:04questions and comments regarding

14:06resonings and special planning areas,

14:08watershed overlay zoning, the timing of

14:11the removal of the Mystic Sea

14:13turnaround, and town policies to pl

14:15place street connection signage on

14:18turnaround and culde-sac bulbs that will

14:19be connected in the future and comments

14:22regarding the relationship between

14:23density, revenue, and the cost to

14:26provide service to annexed property.

14:28There have been no changes made to the

14:30request since the council hearing.

14:35In terms of staff's evaluation of the

14:37case against the imaginary community

14:39plan, we find that for the green level

14:41special planning area and the live and

14:43shape chapters, the proposed 16 detached

14:46dwellings at 1.78

14:48units per acre with 12,000t minimum lot

14:52sizes generally aligns with

14:54recommendations for the neighborhoods

14:55west flat branch sub area and fits the

14:58established residential pattern of the

15:00area.

15:03For the enrich chapter, the applicant is

15:05committing to 2400 square feet of

15:07community gathering area, double the LDO

15:09requirement, supporting open space

15:11preservation, and for the move chapter,

15:14sidewalks on both sides of all

15:16subdivision streets, frontage

15:17improvements along eight store road, and

15:19removal of the Mystic Sea lane

15:21turnaround to support multimodal

15:23connectivity and street connect

15:25continuity.

15:28This concludes my presentation. Uh Worth

15:30Mills, the applicant's representative,

15:32is available to provide comments and

15:34after his comments, I'm available to

15:36answer any questions you may have.

15:38>> Terrific. Thank you.

15:43[clears throat]

15:54Good evening, planning and zoning board

15:56members. Worth Mills with Longleaf Law

15:58Partners. I'm here on behalf of Sterling

16:01West LLC, who is the property owner and

16:03the reasonzoning applicant for 4312

16:07Jacobs Creek Lane. Will Norton, an

16:09engineer with Jones Kasan, is also

16:12available uh and present to answer

16:14questions uh after my brief remarks. Um

16:17thank you to Rachel for giving a very

16:20comprehensive summary of what we're

16:22asking to do here. Um but again just to

16:25reiterate some of the uh key uh points,

16:28our reszoning to R12 conditional use

16:31would allow up to 16 single family

16:34detached homes on this approximately 9

16:36acre parcel which uh results in a 1.78

16:40dwelling units an acre density. Uh that

16:43density and the minimum lot size is

16:45consistent with the green level special

16:48planning area. Um to the south and

16:51southeast are planned developments with

16:53uh denser housing products. So I think

16:55we're very much keeping in line with the

16:58density recommendations and the minimum

17:00lot size recommendations of that special

17:03planning area. Um, key commitments

17:06include uh requiring that all perimeter

17:08buffers be in the common open space, a

17:10commitment to sidewalks on both sides of

17:13all internal streets, and uh 2400 square

17:16feet of community community gathering

17:18area space, which is again doubled the

17:21amount required by the LDO. Um, town

17:25council did raise a few points at the

17:26public hearing that I would just like to

17:28respond to. Some of these may deal more

17:30with the annexation, but they are

17:32somewhat linked given uh there wouldn't

17:34be a reasoning without an annexation

17:35here. Um but the extension of Mystic Sea

17:39Lane into this site and the removal of

17:41that uh bulb at the boundary line. Um to

17:44my knowledge that is a standard

17:46operating procedure in the town of

17:48Kerry. Uh I I know that I worked on a

17:51previous case um a couple months ago

17:53where we had a similar situation where

17:55that bulb would be removed uh to provide

17:57that vehicular connectivity. Uh and then

18:00there was I think just a general concern

18:03about extending town services to this

18:05site. Um this is not an extension of

18:10sort of current municipal limits. uh we

18:13are within a sort of a somewhat large

18:16donut hole uh where we are surrounded by

18:20um town of Kerry corporate limits on all

18:22sides. So this would just be really

18:23filling in that uh Wake County gap that

18:26exists today. U but just to summarize

18:29because of the consistencies with the

18:31community plan, the compatibility with

18:33the surrounding developments and the

18:35offered zoning conditions, we think that

18:37this request is uh reasonable and in the

18:40public interest. Um Will and myself are

18:43available to answer questions, but we

18:45appreciate the time to speak with you

18:46this evening. Thank you very much.

18:48>> Appreciate that.

18:49>> Thanks, Worth. [clears throat]

18:51>> So before we have any dialogue, I'll

18:53just state that the Kerry community plan

18:55is in place to guide the development in

18:57Kerry. As you think about your

18:58questions, keep in mind how this

19:00proposed case fits or does not fit

19:02within the Kerry community plan. When

19:04making a motion, it would be helpful to

19:06describe how you see your motion

19:08impacting the Kerry community plan. for

19:11example, the work shape or live

19:12chapters. While this is not a

19:14requirement, it would be helpful for the

19:16town council to understand how we're

19:17thinking about the case as it applies to

19:19the plan. And so I would just start

19:21maybe down with you, Chris, if you have

19:23any questions or comments. We'll work

19:24our way down.

19:26>> I just had one quick comment or

19:27question. U what's the primary

19:30difference between R12CU versus the TRCU

19:33that's there surrounding the current

19:36property? So, the TRCU allows additional

19:38uses, primarily town houses. It also has

19:41a um smaller minimum lot size, 6,000

19:44square feet.

19:44>> Okay. So, this is a little bit less

19:46dense.

19:47>> Correct.

19:48>> Gotcha. That's all I have.

19:50>> Okay. Bye.

19:52[clears throat]

19:52>> Uh Miss Smith, so council members had

19:55questions and comments and they said uh

19:58there was a discussion of annexation

20:00costs, balance between service costs,

20:02anticipated property tax revenue. Um I

20:05guess what was the crux of that

20:07discussion or

20:10>> so this case I think was also um maybe

20:14influenced by other discussions about

20:16budgeting right it was got adopted right

20:17at the same meeting as the budget being

20:19adopted so it seemed like the council

20:20was relatively sensitive um to the cost

20:22of extending services to new newly

20:24annexed property if I were to

20:27characterize their comments.

20:28>> Sure. Um was there an answer? Was the ex

20:32cost of extending services more than the

20:34cost of revenue?

20:35>> So there was discussion of previous

20:37study that had been undertaken by the

20:38town maybe 20 years ago or so. Um the

20:41mayor specifically um was was talking

20:44about that he it was during his tenure

20:45tenure um he described that typically

20:47only high density um would have return

20:50on investment in terms of property

20:52revenue. Now, other council members did

20:54have suggestions or or commentary about

20:57there are other reasons perhaps to annex

20:59um as well other than just this the

21:00sheer cost of services and then the

21:03amount of revenue taxes would bring in.

21:05Um there was also discussion about the

21:06potential to have a new study undertaken

21:08that might look at density and

21:10development patterns and then the the

21:11return or the cost on that investment.

21:14>> Okay. But there is a max density in this

21:16wershed anyways. I think it's is it two

21:19dwell

21:19>> 1.785?

21:21No. Oh, in the in the area I'm sorry the

21:23watershed was like

21:24>> correct

21:25>> 2.5 I believe

21:26>> 2.5 down to 1.5 if you go further.

21:30Right.

21:30>> So this is in the green level special

21:32planning area and that plan recommends

21:34that the aggregate um for this area

21:37relative um to the flat branch stream be

21:39about 2.5. Now there's some averaging

21:41certainly over the larger development

21:43scale not just site specific.

21:45>> Sure.

21:45>> Okay.

21:46>> No more questions. Anything?

21:49>> No. Is this development part of the

21:52courtyards at Jacob Creek or is it just

21:54a completely new development?

21:56>> I just wanted to Yep.

21:57>> compliment. Okay. Thank you,

22:00>> Diane.

22:00>> No question.

22:01>> Yeah, Ken almost had no questions. I was

22:05going to mark the calendar. Um I we see

22:08a lot that that try to maintain the with

22:10the energy and and and having you know

22:15plugs for EVs and stuff as part of the

22:19care community plan on energy and

22:21conservation and um and I don't see that

22:24in this one. We see it in a lot of them

22:27and I just was wondering um there's no

22:30discussion of that here. So I guess

22:32there's no there's no guarant there's no

22:35they're not proposing any kind of

22:36conditions. Um then then my other

22:39question is it's it's still kind of

22:41overl with the with the budget and

22:43people's budget in mind uh and the

22:46constructing budget. If if the other

22:48develop if the other Jacob's Creek group

22:52um development around it is in planning

22:56is in review right now.

22:57>> It's in development plan review. Yes.

22:58>> Development plan review.

23:00If this gets approved by council

23:05before it gets out of development plan

23:07review,

23:09can't the bulb be changed to a a street?

23:13>> Yes, the timing could absolutely align

23:15where the bulb is not built um with a

23:18development of this size, they might be

23:19able to move a little bit faster, but

23:21the courtyards at Jacob's Creek is just

23:23farther ahead in the process

23:25>> because we have plenty of places with

23:26dead ends. And if we know that there's

23:28something on the other side, I I don't

23:30didn't understand how that in the care

23:32community plan the interest of the it

23:35just just was curious.

23:37>> Yes, certainly the development timelines

23:38could align.

23:39>> Okay, great. That's all I have.

23:43>> Um no, I don't think I have any any

23:45specific questions either. I think this

23:47is a you know small infill area. We're

23:49trying to maintain density, those types

23:51of things. So um it seems pretty

23:54straightforward. Any anyone like to make

23:56a motion or any additional comments or

23:58questions prior to a motion?

24:04>> I move that the board find 15 REZ16 is

24:07consistent with the comprehensive plan

24:09and all other applicable plans for the

24:11reasons set forth in the staff report

24:13presentation and discussion by the

24:15planning and zoning board.

24:17>> And we have a second. Okay. So I guess

24:20Sean if you have any comments to support

24:21that uh recommendation or motion. No,

24:24again looks well researched, good

24:26infill. Um, you know, good report, good

24:28presentation,

24:30you know, continue continued uh shaped

24:34growth.

24:35>> Ditto and and the the EV things don't

24:38bother me if people can choose to buy a

24:40house without an EV connection and pay

24:42for their own.

24:43>> So, yeah, doesn't bother me.

24:45>> D, anything?

24:47>> Mike? No. Uh, and I would say the same

24:50thing. I mean, one of the things I asked

24:51Rachel about in advance was this is an

24:53area that has some of our older

24:54structures in the county and the area

24:56and you know whether or not there's a

24:58there's a hope that we would have some

25:00architectural or some character things.

25:02Ultimately, the design of some of these

25:04single families may have some of those

25:05characteristics, but it's not a

25:07requirement. So, um you know, it would

25:10be unfair to impose something on such a

25:12small infield development to fix a much

25:14bigger uh kind of development plan. So

25:17um I guess then that case we would move

25:19forward with a vote. All those in favor

25:21please state I.

25:22>> I. Any opposed?

25:24>> All right. That means that our one and

25:27only case has been concluded with

25:29unanimous uh uh conclusion. And at this

25:33point I think I'm allowed there's no new

25:36business. So I'm allowed to adjourn the

25:37meeting unless anyone opposes that. All

25:40right. Meeting Jiren.

25:59[music]