2026-08-24 - Planning and Zoning Board

04:35[music]

04:59Good evening and welcome to the planning

05:01and zoning board meeting. Thank you for

05:03joining us tonight. I call this meeting

05:05to order. Our board clerk, Jessica Haba

05:08will take roll call this evening.

05:10>> Thank you. For the record, Andy Co, Jeff

05:14Monreef, Sal Camarada, and Ruben Moore

05:17are absent this evening. The following

05:19board members are present. Ojanna Eaton,

05:22Chris Johnson, Mike Rosselli, Shawn

05:26McAndrew, Diane Mayo, and Ken George.

05:31Thank you. [clears throat]

05:33The Kerry Community Plan will continue

05:35to be the guiding document for this

05:37board. Our role is to function as

05:39citizen adviserss to the council, will

05:42ultimately make final decisions on all

05:43resoning activity. We recognize that not

05:46all resoning requests are supported

05:48unanimously by members of our community,

05:50but we strive to balance the impact of

05:52increased building density required to

05:54support K's growth while maintaining the

05:57historic charm and character of Kerry.

06:00The Kerry community plan was initially

06:02adopted in 2017 following a

06:04collaborative effort between Kerry

06:05citizens and our town government. That

06:08collaboration has continued and resulted

06:10in a recently updated version of the

06:12plan adopted by council in January of

06:142025.

06:16The chapters of that plan include live,

06:19work, shape, engage,

06:22shop, move, enrich, serve, and act.

06:26Community plan can be found on K's

06:28website. Your citizen opinions based on

06:31the Kerry community plan document play a

06:34very important role in advising our

06:35leaders. We encourage our citizens to

06:38refer to the plan and provide feedback

06:40that is based on the guiding principles

06:41of the plan as it relates to the zoning

06:43request.

06:45While this is a public meeting, it is

06:47not a public hearing. There is no

06:48opportunity for the public to speak

06:50during this meeting. If you have

06:52comments about any of these items, we

06:54encourage you to reach out to staff by

06:55email or phone. You may reach out to our

06:58board members through email. You may

07:00also contact council directly through

07:02email or during the public speaks out

07:04portion of any regularly scheduled

07:06council meeting. These meetings may be

07:09streamed live on car's website and will

07:11be posted to YouTube. Past planning and

07:13zoning board meetings are available to

07:15view on YouTube as well.

07:19First item on the agenda is to adopt the

07:21agenda. Will someone make a motion to

07:24adopt the agenda?

07:25>> So move.

07:26>> Second.

07:27>> All those in favor state I. I

07:30>> I

07:30>> and the opposed. Nay.

07:35>> Will someone make a motion to approve

07:37the July 27 minutes?

07:40>> So moved.

07:42>> Second.

07:43>> All those in favor say I.

07:44>> I.

07:45>> I.

07:45>> All those opposed say nay. Motion

07:48carries.

07:50>> Cases. Our first case on the agenda is

07:5222RE06

07:55Green Level Church at Mills Farm Road

07:57Reszoning.

07:59Aaron Pucket, planning manager, will

08:01share a staff's presentation. Following

08:03the presentation, the applicant will

08:04share their remarks. All board members

08:06will have an opportunity to ask

08:08questions of staff and the applicant.

08:10Miss Pucket, you may proceed.

08:12>> Thank you and good evening, board. This

08:14is a request to reszone approximately 11

08:17acres located along the eastern side of

08:19Green Level Church Road within the Green

08:21Level Special Planning Area. The site

08:24may look familiar to some of you as the

08:26planning and zoning board previously

08:27reviewed this case in November of 2022.

08:31As it is unusual for this board to

08:33review a case more than once, and many

08:35of you may not have been here the last

08:36time it was in front of this board, I do

08:38want to take a moment to briefly review

08:40the history of this case and the process

08:42so far.

08:45Staff hosted a neighborhood meeting for

08:46this resoning in July of 2022.

08:50A public hearing was then held for this

08:52item at council's November 2022 meeting.

08:55They referred the case to this board and

08:57it was considered at your meeting in

08:59February 2023.

09:01At that time, the board found the

09:03request inconsistent with the plan by a

09:05vote of 5 to 4.

09:08Recently at their July 2026 meeting,

09:11council referred the case back to the

09:12planning and zoning board for additional

09:14consideration at the applicant's

09:16request. They are proposing several

09:18changes which I will go over

09:19momentarily.

09:21While this is somewhat uncommon, it is

09:23one of the options for council action

09:25per the LDO.

09:28The site consists of four parcels and is

09:30located between the Southerntherland

09:32neighborhood to the south and the

09:33Tuscana neighborhood to the north.

09:36According to car's GIS, there is a

09:38potential stream buffer crossing the

09:40property. Field verification of such

09:42features is required at time of

09:44development plan review.

09:46The site is located in close proximity

09:48to Thomas Brooks Park to the northeast.

09:51There is a future streetside trail

09:52proposed along both the future Mills

09:54Farm Road extension as well as along

09:57Green Level Church Road along most of

09:59the site's frontage. And this would help

10:01complete the current gap between the

10:02trail north and south of the site.

10:06The site is currently zoned residential

10:0840

10:10and the applicant proposes a resoning to

10:12transitional residential conditional use

10:14or TRCU.

10:17The applicant has proposed several

10:18zoning conditions. These include

10:21limiting development of the site to a

10:22maximum of 39 dwellings or about 3.5

10:25units per acre. This was reduced from 44

10:28units as proposed the last time the

10:30board evaluated the case.

10:33limiting uses to detached dwellings and

10:35associated neighborhood recreation and

10:37accessory uses. Previously, town houses

10:40were also proposed.

10:42Providing a minimum of 7,200 square ft

10:45of community gathering space, which is

10:47three times the LDO requirement.

10:50Providing a 60 foot wide streetscape

10:52along Green Level Church Road, which may

10:54be averaged as long as it is no less

10:56than 50 ft at any one point. This does

11:00exceed the LDO requirement by 10 ft. The

11:02applicant also offers additional

11:04plantings within this type A buffer.

11:07Providing an electric vehicle charging

11:09ready receptacle in the garage of each

11:11unit, providing a decorative wood fence

11:14feature at the Mills Farm Road entrance

11:16from Green Level Church Road for

11:18consistency with the rural look of the

11:20area and at least five additional

11:22understory or ornamental trees in

11:24proximity to the fence which will be of

11:26a species native to North Carolina's

11:28rural areas.

11:31conditions further commit to calculating

11:33lot size separately from any stream

11:35buffers which state general statutes

11:37otherwise would allow.

11:40Provide a 65 ft building setback from

11:42the closest lots in Southerntherland to

11:44the south.

11:46Clarify no direct driveway access to

11:49Mills Farm Road and include

11:51architectural conditions such as a mix

11:53of building materials on front facades

11:55and pitch roofs. The applicant has

11:57excluded vinyl sighting and offered

11:59twocar garages for all units in addition

12:02to some other more minimal architectural

12:04details or treatments which are included

12:06in full in your staff report.

12:10Finally, several conditions have been

12:11added to address road improvements,

12:14including providing sidewalk on both

12:16sides of all streets built with

12:17development of this site. This is

12:19consistent with conditions offered by

12:21the recently approved resoning to the

12:23east that this site would connect to.

12:26Restriping the existing northbound right

12:29turn lane north of the site into Carpon

12:31Lane to provide additional storage

12:33length and/or taper length.

12:36Striping the widened pavement of the

12:38green level church road frontage south

12:40of the proposed Mills Farm Road

12:41intersection to provide a northbound

12:43right turn lane into Mills Farm Road

12:47and providing additional street lighting

12:49along the east side of Green Level

12:50Church Road from the site's northern

12:52property line to Carpon Lane.

12:56An analysis of the request against the

12:58imaginary community plan finds the

13:00policies in the live, shape, engage,

13:03move, and enrich chapters apply most

13:05directly as well as goals and policies

13:07of the green level special planning

13:08area. The proposed resoning generally

13:11contributes to area housing choice on an

13:13infill site. The infill policy notes the

13:15importance of development compatible

13:17with adjacent residential neighborhoods

13:19and with the removal of town houses as

13:21an option, this appears to be more

13:23clearly met. Although the density is

13:25higher and lot size smaller than that of

13:27adjoining neighborhoods. This also

13:29speaks to the associated shape policy

13:31regarding transitions. And in this case,

13:34the use helps to provide a transition

13:36along with the Mills farm road alignment

13:38and additional 65- ft setback from the

13:41south which will provide some separation

13:43for residents in Southerntherland.

13:47Development of the site would require

13:48the extension of Mils Farm Road,

13:51including the associated streetside

13:52trail as well as a continuation of that

13:55streetside trail along much of the Green

13:56Level Church Road frontage, which will

13:58help provide additional multimodal

14:00connectivity in the area, addressing

14:02certain engage policies.

14:04Modest improvements to nearby turn lanes

14:06and street lighting along with a

14:08commitment to sidewalk on both sides of

14:10internal streets does help to address

14:12some move policies. And the proposal

14:14includes a slightly increased

14:16streetscape width and extra gathering

14:18space which may support enriched chapter

14:20policies regarding tree preservation and

14:22open space.

14:25The site is located within the green

14:26level special planning area in

14:28neighborhoods east of flat branch as

14:30shown on this map with a blue star. This

14:32area begins the gradual downward

14:34transition in density moving west from

14:37NC540 towards Chattam County and

14:40recommends that new development be

14:41shielded from view of thorough affairs

14:43and collectors be of a clustered

14:45development pattern use elements that

14:47hearken back to the rural character of

14:49the area and limit the aggregate density

14:51of the subd district to three units per

14:53acre.

14:55This site does offer a slightly

14:57increased thoroughare buffer of 60 ft

14:59compared to the LDO requirement of 50.

15:01However, as discussed in further detail

15:03in the staff report, many of the

15:05neighborhoods in green level offered

15:06wider streetscapes or bonus open space

15:09to separate and screen development from

15:11thorough affairs. The 10-ft increase to

15:13streetscape width does modestly address

15:15the open space policy of the special

15:17planning area. No clustering is

15:19specifically proposed, although the site

15:21is somewhat constrained by potential

15:23stream buffers and again the required

15:25Mills Farm Road extension. A decorative

15:28fence and additional native plantings

15:30have been proposed to help provide an

15:31aesthetic nod to Green Level and the

15:33nearby historic district. And the

15:35relatively small size of the site itself

15:38may help justify the smaller lot size

15:40and higher density.

15:43The proposed density of 3.5 units per

15:45acre is higher than the recommended

15:48aggregate density for this area of three

15:50units per acre and does exceed the

15:52density of other subdivisions in Green

15:53Level to date, including the two

15:55townhouse neighborhoods in this subdist.

15:57Currently, developed sites within

15:59neighborhoods east of Flat Branch range

16:01from about 1.1 to 2.7 units per acre,

16:04which means that the aggregate density

16:06of the developed areas of the subdist

16:08would still remain well below 3 units

16:10per acre if this resoning is approved,

16:12even at that higher density. The plan

16:15does also specify that higher density

16:17should generally be found closer to 540

16:19and transition down towards the west,

16:22but the small area of the site means

16:24that the density transition can be

16:25generally maintained.

16:28A virtual neighborhood meeting was held

16:30in July of 2022. Over 50 citizens

16:33participated in the meeting and had

16:35questions regarding parking

16:36requirements, community gathering space,

16:39and road improvements along Green Level

16:41Church Road and Mills Farm Road. A

16:43number of concerns were also expressed,

16:45including the need for an affordable or

16:47workforce housing component, concerns

16:49about traffic impacts, buffering of

16:51existing neighborhoods, drainage,

16:53density, and a general concern with town

16:56houses at this location as was

16:58originally proposed. Again, that has

17:00been changed to detached units since.

17:02Between the neighborhood meeting and

17:04public hearing, staff received five

17:05emails. three simply seeking information

17:08about the resoning process and two

17:10reiterated similar concerns as heard at

17:12the meeting.

17:14A public hearing was held in November of

17:162022. There were two written comments

17:18and two in-person speakers and concerns

17:21included those with proposed use and

17:23density, environmental and drainage

17:25impacts, transition transitions to

17:27adjoining neighborhoods, traffic

17:29property value impacts, and lack of

17:31affordable housing.

17:33Council members agreed with resident

17:35observations about traffic on Green

17:37Level Church Road and some commented on

17:39the difficulty of justifying town houses

17:41as a transitional use. Additional

17:44questions and comments were summarized

17:46in your staff report.

17:48A number of changes were made following

17:50the public hearing and additional

17:52changes were made following the first

17:53planning and zoning board meeting and

17:55those are summarized here. Changes

17:58include a reduction to the maximum

17:59number of units and a removal of town

18:02houses as a permitted use. A number of

18:04architectural requirements were added,

18:06including those material and roof form

18:08specifications mentioned previously, as

18:11well as two-car garages. transportation

18:13improvements to include turn lanes,

18:15lighting, and sidewalk exceeding minimum

18:17LDO requirements, and a clarification

18:20that no driveways will directly access

18:22Mills Farm Road, which is a collector.

18:26Staff found the request addresses or

18:28partially addresses some live, shape,

18:30engage, move, and serve policies. We

18:33found the request provides her more

18:34housing in the area on an infill site.

18:37Regarding transitions, again, the

18:39proposed density is higher than that of

18:40surrounding neighborhoods, but we note

18:42that construction of the Mills Farm Road

18:44extension will naturally provide some

18:46separation and buffers between this site

18:48and the neighborhood to the south.

18:50Construction of Mills Farm Road,

18:52including the streetside trail, is

18:54required by the LDO and supports

18:56connectivity goals of the engage and

18:57move chapters. Pre-wiring for electric

19:00vehicles and an increased streetscape

19:02and gathering area help to address

19:04enriched chapter policies.

19:08Regarding the green level special

19:09planning area, the maximum gross site

19:11density proposed is higher than that

19:13aggre aggregate maximum density

19:15recommended for neighborhoods east of

19:17Flat Branch. However, the small size of

19:19the site means the proposed density will

19:22not substantially increase the overall

19:23density of the sub area.

19:26The small site and site constraints

19:28along with the slightly increased

19:29streetscape help with screening of

19:31denser development

19:33conditions do not explicitly address

19:35additional open space or perimeter

19:36buffers.

19:39This concludes my presentation. The

19:40applicant's representative will Yoduski

19:42is here to provide the applicant's

19:44comments and then I'm available for

19:45questions.

20:09Good evening everyone. Thank you Erin uh

20:12for that uh rundown of our process so

20:16far and uh for actually uh some really

20:18good graphics expressing our

20:20transportation conditions as well. Um

20:22I'm here on behalf of the Yen family uh

20:25who owns these four parcels. They're

20:27there. Um

20:29and uh as Aaron said, we've we've made a

20:32number of changes in the last couple

20:33years, four years, uh since the last

20:36time this came here. And obviously the

20:39uh change from allowing town homes or

20:42detached to just allowing detached is is

20:44a fairly substantial one with respect to

20:46some concerns by the neighbors in terms

20:49of uh you know, discussions with staff

20:51and council and the neighbors.

20:53[clears throat] You know, Green Level

20:53Church Road is a is a is a real sore

20:56spot. So you'll see, you know, a number

20:57of our conditions are relating to uh

21:00extending our required widening up to up

21:04up to Carpon Lane where uh we we've been

21:07told uh the right turn lane is is

21:09dangerously insufficient. Uh extending

21:12the street lighting the the darkness

21:13they're generally, you know, here to

21:15four uh Green Level Church Road was not

21:17widened with street lights. So, we're

21:19adding adding street lights um which,

21:21you know, will help 700 feet of a

21:24several mile section, but nevertheless,

21:26uh we're doing what we can. Um you know,

21:29as noted, we've we've dropped the

21:31density um uh down to three and a half

21:34units an acre and and to the point it is

21:37higher than the uh three unit per acre

21:39gross area wide density guidance. uh but

21:42also because of the existing density

21:44that's below two units an acre, it's

21:46it's a drop in the bucket for the green

21:49level density. So, um

21:53that's what I've got and I'm here if you

21:55have any questions.

22:04>> Thank you, Miss Bucket. Thank you, Mr.

22:05Yoduski.

22:07Kerry community plan is in place to

22:08guide development in Kerry. As you think

22:10about your questions, keep in mind how

22:12this proposed case fits or does not fit

22:14the community plan. When making a

22:16motion, it would be helpful to describe

22:18how you see your motion impacting the

22:19Kerry community plan. For example, with

22:22work, shape, or live chapters. While

22:24this is not a requirement, it would help

22:26the town council understand how we think

22:28this case applies to the plan. So,

22:32questions. Let's start uh down here, Mr.

22:34George.

22:34>> Okay. Uh just a couple um that came to

22:38mind. Is it fair to say, Miss Bucket,

22:41that when you anticipate an average of

22:44three,

22:45you've got to go over three, otherwise

22:47it's it's pointless. You'll never

22:49average three if everything stays under

22:50three. It's a math. But in the district

22:53overall, it seems like in this case that

22:56stream buffers may strictly may reduce

23:00the amount of really developable land in

23:03there. And then again, so smaller lots

23:06um are called for so you can get that

23:08many in there. Is that fair? Because it

23:10looked like it was pretty if that's

23:12accurate,

23:13>> right? And to your point, the site is

23:14fairly constrained. So even at that max,

23:17it's likely that there could be fewer

23:19lots ultimately.

23:20>> Yeah, that's what it looked like to me.

23:22Uh, and then do we define what EV

23:26suitable charging is because I just

23:29moved into a place that um doesn't have

23:33enough. It's got a charger port, but

23:35there's not enough amperage.

23:37So, do we I know it says 240 volts in

23:40somewhere, but what what do we specify

23:43as what we consider EV suitable? If

23:45somebody defines that says I'm going to

23:47provide an EV suitable outlet or drop,

23:49what do we define as that? So, our

23:51ordinance actually doesn't provide

23:53specifics. It's a little bit of a gap.

23:55That's something that staff have looked

23:56into in the past and can continue

23:58discussing as a possible LDO amendment

24:00going forward. Um, right now, because

24:03like any other condition, it's

24:04voluntary. We sort of let the market

24:07drive it and go with what the applicant

24:08proposes, unless it's something that

24:10seems completely out of out of keeping

24:12with current standards. Okay, that's um

24:16I think that would be helpful because we

24:18we like the we're following the

24:20community plan and it says, you know, we

24:22talk about EV charging and meeting

24:23demand, but when you know cars can

24:26charge at 48 amps and they put 30 amp

24:29circuits in that you can charge with 24,

24:31it just seems like we're not we're not

24:33meeting it. So, it' be great. I know

24:35things keep changing, but also it's

24:37almost like you index it with inflation.

24:38You index it with

24:41with the way that cars can take more and

24:43more as we move forward. Otherwise, we

24:45just stay left behind. Um,

24:46>> it's something that staff can continue

24:48looking into for sure.

24:50>> Awesome. Um,

24:52and we don't

24:55do we define because we're talking about

24:56how it fits in the community plan.

25:00What does the word decorative wood

25:02fence? What does decorative mean?

25:04>> Um, so to your point, it's a fairly

25:07vague descriptor. Um, this is a little

25:09bit it's one of the challenges of this

25:12special planning area in particular.

25:14There is a historic district in this

25:15area and there's this rural character

25:17that the plan talks about and we get

25:18this question a lot because the special

25:20planning area never actually defines

25:22what does rural mean? What should that

25:24aesthetic character look like? Um,

25:27from a precedent standpoint, we have

25:29several other developments in this area,

25:31including actually the one you can see

25:32on this slide in R12 across the street

25:35offered a similar feature. So, for

25:38better or worse, we're kind of going

25:39with what a few other developments have

25:41already provided. It's typically like a

25:43split rail style fence with some

25:46additional native plantings around it.

25:48Um, kind of just to give it that nod to

25:51to rural character.

25:53>> Yeah. So, split rail is is I've seen

25:55them out there. So, that that typically

25:57that's decorative or or style. Well,

26:00>> and in the condition, it does specify

26:02that our planning staff have to review

26:04that. Kind of make sure that it follows

26:05that same aesthetic detail as some of

26:07the other ones that have been built out

26:08there. I don't have that level of detail

26:10on the slide for you, but it is in the

26:12written condition that planning staff

26:13would review that.

26:14>> I guess technically I remember when

26:16killed our farm road had barbed wire

26:18fences because there were cows.

26:19>> Will not be that.

26:20>> It would not be cows.

26:21>> I was going to say that would not be

26:22rural.

26:23>> Okay. Not that rural. Okay. Thank you.

26:25That's all I have.

26:26>> Thank you.

26:27>> No questions.

26:30Um

26:32the two things that I see from the that

26:34they have really changed in the

26:35conditions was from 44 to 39 and the

26:37removal of town houses. Was there

26:39anything else that was previous that's a

26:42change of the conditions that they

26:44previously offered that previously came

26:46in front of this board?

26:48>> Yes. So the ones that were changed since

26:50it came in front of this board, the

26:51architectural requirements that I

26:52mentioned were new since it came to this

26:55board. Um the transportation

26:57improvements were the other kind of big

26:59one since it came in front of this

27:01board. That was a very recent change. So

27:03the off-site turn lane improvements. Um

27:06this resoning did not have a traffic

27:07study associated with it. So that was

27:09all completely voluntary. Um along with

27:11the street lighting and the sidewalk. Um

27:14those were the main ones. So the

27:16gathering space, the um streetscape,

27:20those things were already in place when

27:22it came in front of you before. To your

27:24point, the biggest changes are the

27:26density and use,

27:27>> right? Just because I remember our

27:30arguments, you know, because it is so

27:32congested. The argument was it is over

27:34that 3.0. It's just not consistent with

27:37the rest of the area and the

27:39architecture and they still come back

27:41and it's still not within the three that

27:44we had talked about and discussed

27:46previously.

27:47>> Yes. So the concern of the board was not

27:51truly addressed which was one of the

27:53reasons why we found it inconsistent the

27:55last time. I think that's a fair

27:58observation. The density did come down

28:00slightly. I think it was closer to 3.9

28:02previously but did not fully come down

28:04to be entirely um within that aggregate

28:08recommendation.

28:10I would ask, you know, from the staff's

28:12perspective,

28:14you know, we again, we recommended

28:17inconsistent the last time.

28:18>> Yes.

28:19>> And in my mind, is there any reason to,

28:21you know, it's still in my mind

28:23inconsistent

28:26based on, you know, based on our

28:28conversations from LA, you know, the

28:30last one?

28:31because of how I'll say,

28:35you know, the traffic ones are great um

28:37for that. Um but at the same time, they

28:41they didn't come back and really address

28:42the concerns that we have. Are you

28:44seeing the same thing?

28:46So, when staff is looking at this, um,

28:49and as you'll note, uh, when we provide

28:52our summary, we kind of go through all

28:53of the policies, and really we're

28:55looking to you to tell us how you weigh

28:57those because I might weigh them and

28:59come up with one, um,

29:02>> recommendation, and you might weigh

29:03those same things, come with another. I

29:04think to your point, we fully understand

29:07that one of the major concerns was

29:08density. That is a discussion that staff

29:10had with the applicants. They chose to

29:13hold firm with the 3.5.

29:15>> Okay. Um, so that's what's in front of

29:17you this evening to consider.

29:18>> I appreciate the insight. Thank you.

29:20>> Yes. Thank you.

29:24>> So, um, I have a question regarding the

29:27storm water runoff u with that stream

29:29coming through and it's kind of

29:30substantial based on the blue. I don't

29:32know in reality is there actually you

29:36can see the water or um it is

29:38underground but is so is that going to

29:42actually impact potentially the 3.5 and

29:44it's going to be like three at the end

29:46of the day. It could possibly it's not

29:48uncommon that the maximum they ask for

29:50at time of reszoning comes down slightly

29:53at time of development plan. Um, I will

29:55say from some of the exhibits the

29:56applicant shared, it looks like they've

29:58done some survey work out there and that

30:00stream buffer may not be as our GIS

30:04shows it across the entirety of the

30:06site. They seem to show a determination

30:08that would show it stopping further

30:10south. So, they may have more

30:11developable area than what that stream

30:13buffer map shows. We only have our GIS

30:15to go off of until we get a formal

30:17determination at time of development

30:18plan. But to your point, there certainly

30:20are some constraints associated with

30:22those stream features that could limit

30:25the developability of the site further.

30:27>> Okay, that was my question.

30:31>> Um,

30:34so yeah, I was I was looking at the

30:36density as well. Um, so originally it

30:39was at 4.0 44 units. Now to get down to

30:43three, it would have to be 34 and they

30:45split they split it. So, it's like right

30:47in the middle, 3.5. Um,

30:51the Carpenton lane improvements,

30:54that was a staff recommendation. Is that

30:56what I heard?

30:57>> Correct. Um, and that's in part because

30:59there is sort of a partial turn lane

31:01there now, but it's not fully consistent

31:03with today's standard specification. So,

31:05they would be improving that and adding

31:07some additional capacity as well as, I

31:08believe, curbon gutter,

31:10>> but they're not getting a benefit from

31:11that improvement. Correct. They're not

31:13having access to carbon lane or

31:14anything. Correct. They would not

31:16directly access Carpon Lane. That is a

31:19voluntary off-site improvement that they

31:21have offered.

31:22>> Okay. Um

31:27yeah, I think all the other questions I

31:28had were previously addressed. Sorry.

31:32>> Um I I think just to go back on that

31:35that density just to get one more

31:37clarification. So um there is a uh

31:41density for the overall area uh that

31:44we're trying to hit by averaging

31:46developments. Can can we go over that

31:47one more time?

31:48>> Yes. So and this is unique to the green

31:51level special planning area. It talks

31:53about a maximum aggregate. So it

31:54certainly could be lower than that but

31:56the maximum aggregate that's envisioned

31:57for the areas east of flat branch is

31:59three units per acre. So and I think um

32:02Mr. George mentioned this earlier. We

32:05know that with the small size of this

32:07site, even if it's over the aggregate of

32:09what's developed so far, will still be

32:11under three. So, it's just a balancing

32:13act of, you know, if everything from

32:15here on out develops at three and a

32:17half, do we ultimately tip it? Quite

32:19possibly. Um, so far to date, everything

32:22that's developed has developed at below

32:25that three. So, this will not tip it

32:27over. Um, again, it's just a matter of

32:31balance. You know, do does this one go

32:34over? That means someone in the future

32:35might have to be less. They can't all be

32:38over three and still maintain that

32:39three. So,

32:41>> we don't have a crystal ball, but as of

32:43today, this would not be anywhere close

32:45to to trip that maximum aggregate

32:48density.

32:48>> Gotcha.

32:51>> Can I

32:53go ahead? Great.

32:54>> I just had one more that I forgot. Um,

32:56so and I don't know if I missed in the

32:58presentation or not. Did you did you say

33:00was there notes on I may have been on

33:02the count on on on the plan board at

33:04that time. I can't remember right when I

33:06started, but do you was there a list of

33:07what the main issues were for the

33:10descent on not approving it the first

33:12time?

33:13>> Yes. And I

33:14>> through those one more time.

33:15>> I believe Miss McAndrew kind of hit it

33:16on the head. The density was the big

33:18one. Okay. Um, and I believe the use and

33:21how it transitioned to detached. Yeah.

33:24because at the time it could have been

33:25entirely town homes. There was no limit

33:27on the town homes. So it could have been

33:2844 town homes. The density and the use

33:31seemed to be the major sticking points.

33:33>> Okay.

33:35>> So going back if if to to find it

33:39inconsistent. Um I see and I wasn't here

33:42for that, but I can certainly see the

33:43inconsistency when there's town homes

33:45partly because of the the other

33:48neighborhoods and the transition.

33:50>> It it was the transition. It's the the

33:52decorative wood. It's the keeping the

33:54historic context. There wasn't enough

33:58there.

33:59It was it was not consistent with

34:01everything, you know, that was laid out

34:03for that district. And so that's one of

34:06the reasons you, you know, everything

34:08combined was a lot of the reason why it

34:10was found in or voted in

34:12>> all of it together.

34:13>> It's all of it together.

34:14>> See that? and and is there a way I I'm

34:18sure that uh we could load a spreadsheet

34:20up with everything

34:22on that side and easily tell right now

34:26where our density is and we could

34:28actually say if we develop the rest of

34:31them at 3.0

34:34where would that final number be? that

34:36would be helpful to me because we say

34:38this is a it is a little one or less a

34:40little one but there's going to be more

34:42little ones coming and then there may be

34:43some medium-sized ones coming. Um I

34:46certainly favor I don't have a problem

34:49with the if 3.0 was supposed to be the

34:52average that to me means some of them

34:54are going to go over and I have no

34:56problem with them going over if they're

34:57meeting a lot of other stuff. I think

34:58that's really important for me to look

35:00at is that if you go over

35:03if if if it's 3.5 in town houses, I

35:06think I'd still have a problem with it.

35:08But we're going to go

35:11we're going to have to go over 3.0.

35:14It's easy to stay under if we just go

35:17barely over 3.0 for some small places,

35:19even some medium-sized places because

35:20you showed right now it's 1.2 to 2.7

35:25is what I saw the range.

35:27So, but I would like to know, it would

35:30be great to help us make a 3.0 decision

35:33to just put it in a spreadsheet. You've

35:35got to know what these all are. And if

35:37we could lump those in, it'd be great to

35:40know. Um, I think I'd have more more

35:43informed decision if I had that

35:45information.

35:46>> Understood. We can probably put some of

35:48that together for a final council

35:50decision. I will say we kind of went

35:52through that exercise for what has

35:54developed so far and it's about 1.6 6

35:561.7 units per acre if you take all

35:58that's been developed. It's a little

36:00more difficult when we get into what

36:02percentage is undeveloped because is

36:04someone's single family home going to

36:05redevelop? If an area has not built out

36:08the full resoning approval, could it add

36:10lots? So, there's it's a it's a little

36:12more nuanced than just a flat

36:14undeveloped developed X Y. But I take

36:17your point and we could probably get

36:19something close to that. Um, if you

36:21think that would be helpful for council

36:22to consider.

36:23>> Yeah, if it's 1.6 six. Now, clearly,

36:25we're not going to tip it with 39 or 40.

36:28We wouldn't tip it with 50. We wouldn't

36:30tip it, but but we're going to meet the

36:33the um the nature of the the

36:35neighborhood and the split rail. And I

36:37think it's a u I think it's a wonderful

36:39opportunity, especially if it's a

36:41difficult topography or or with at least

36:44with the buffers, the repairing buffers

36:46and the problems. I think I think we

36:48need to I think we need to be able to to

36:52go over in these small areas. So, we

36:55come we still going to be under it and

36:56we're still going to also people want

36:58smaller yards to keep up as well. I

37:02mean, there's people that do want that.

37:03So, I think to provide that variety of

37:05housing is another reason that I think

37:06it's important and it can be um

37:10a good point. Anyway, that's that's my

37:12point on the numbers.

37:15>> Any other questions? I just wanted to

37:17kind of the availability of housing

37:19diversity and I like what Ken said

37:21because I'm looking at it and yeah, the

37:24fact [snorts] that they changed to, you

37:25know, single family homes, not like town

37:27homes. Um, they're going to cost a

37:30little bit less than some of the other

37:31homes around that area that are on

37:33larger acres and affordability that we

37:35talk about. That's one way to do it,

37:37>> right? So, just putting it out there, I

37:39think there's a point to be had with

37:41that.

37:43>> Still not very affordable, but I would

37:46say they did make several updates and

37:49changes to the

37:50>> Yeah, several concessions,

37:52>> some of which are not tied directly to

37:54this property.

37:58>> With that, would uh someone make a

38:00motion for 2314

38:03at your property resoning?

38:04>> I will. I move that the board find 22

38:06RZ06 is consistent with the

38:08comprehensive plan and all other

38:10applicable plans for the reasons set

38:12forth in the staff report the

38:14presentation and the discussion we just

38:16had here in the planning and zoning

38:17board.

38:18>> Do I have a second?

38:19>> I'll second.

38:21>> Any discussion?

38:27>> All right.

38:29All of those in favor state I

38:32>> I

38:32>> I

38:32>> I uh any nays state nay.

38:35>> Nay.

38:38>> Motion carries.

38:49[cough]

38:50[clears throat]

38:53And I believe I apologize. I need to

38:55make a correction for the record. I

38:58think when I did that I said will

39:00someone make a motion for the 23r 14 and

39:03that was for 23 reg06

39:07Matt are there any issues with that

39:10perfect all perfect all right our second

39:14case in the agenda

39:16perfect our second case in the agenda is

39:192314

39:21hater property uh principal planner

39:23Rachel Smith will share staff's

39:25presentation following the presentation

39:27applicant will share their remarks. All

39:29board members will have an opportunity

39:30to ask questions of staff and the

39:32applicant. Miss Smith, you may proceed.

39:34>> Thank you. Good evening, board. This is

39:37a reasonzoning for an assemblage of

39:38approximately 23.15 acres in Western

39:41Kerry. One parcel is unressed and the

39:45others are addressed 74 and 80 Saunders

39:48Grove Lane.

39:50The property is located within Car's

39:52corporate limits and is in the Carpenter

39:54Special Planning Area shown in red and

39:56adjacent to the Carpenter National

39:58Register Historic District shown in

40:00blue. There are no documented historic

40:03buildings on the site.

40:05The surrounding neighborhoods include

40:08Old Carpenter, Carpenter Village, and

40:11Magnolia Estates.

40:15The Carpenter special planning area

40:17shows the conceptual alignment of

40:18several planned greenways,

40:22including the village trail, a

40:24character-defining feature of the

40:25special planning area in a unique

40:27element within car's planning framework.

40:31The parks, recreation, and cultural

40:33resources system plan further refineses

40:35locations of these proposed trails and

40:39the applicant has committed to build the

40:40village trail along the western edge of

40:42the property and to build the portions

40:44of the Kit Creek Greenway corridor which

40:46run along the boundary of the site.

40:50The site is south of Saunders Grove Lane

40:52and north of April Bloom Lane. Raybrook

40:55Way stubs just to the east of the

40:58property.

41:00The current zoning is Kerry residential

41:0240 and the applicant requests resoning

41:06to residential 8 conditional use.

41:10The proposed zoning conditions limit the

41:12development to a maximum of 52 detached

41:15dwellings and includes a concept plan

41:17that illustrates the overall layout and

41:19special key zoning commitments.

41:22The R8 zoning requires a minimum lot

41:24size of 8,000 square ft and the

41:27applicant is committing that at least

41:2840% of all lots will be a minimum of

41:3110,000 square ft and will be located in

41:34the yellow pod areas as shown on the

41:36concept plan.

41:39Community gathering area will be a

41:41minimum of 7,000 square ft, 2,000 ft

41:44more than the LDO requirement. Most

41:47perimeter buffers which would otherwise

41:48be permitted on residential lots will be

41:50on common lots and the applicant has

41:53offered architectural commitments.

41:56Non-traditional exterior building

41:57materials are prohibited including vital

42:00sighting, ephus and plastic composite

42:02lumber products and quarter lot homes

42:05must incorporate additional

42:07architectural details and foundation

42:09plantings on side lot facades.

42:12Homes located within 100 feet of the

42:14village trail or Saunders Grove Lane,

42:17both important to viewhed corridors

42:19leading into the historic Carpenter

42:21Crossroads area, must incorporate at

42:23least two traditional architectural

42:25design elements from an improved list,

42:28such as gable roofs or front porches.

42:31These commitments help ensure that the

42:33homes most visible from these key

42:35corridors incorporate design features

42:37that complement the character of the

42:39historic crossroads area and reinforce

42:42the unique identity of Carpenter.

42:48The village trail will be located along

42:50the western edge of the site is a 12-

42:52foot wide meandering ADA accessible

42:54trail located within a 60 foot wide

42:57corridor.

42:58Consistent with the carpenter special

43:00planning area vision, the trail will

43:02incorporate contextsensitive materials

43:04and design elements intended to evoke

43:07the area's historic character.

43:10The applicant also commits to providing

43:12at least two interpretive signs that

43:14tell the story of Carpenters's history

43:16subject to review and approval by Kerry

43:18Historic Preservation staff.

43:20Additionally, using a pick list, storm

43:22water facilities will include modest

43:24pedestrian amenities.

43:28The conditions also include multimodal

43:30commitments. A transit easement will be

43:32dedicated along the Saunders Grove

43:34frontage and there will be a raised

43:35pedestrian crossing on April Bloom Lane.

43:39Additionally, the developer will

43:40construct the greenways, streetside

43:42trails, and the village trail as shown

43:44on the concept plan.

43:46Sidewalks will be constructed on both

43:48sides of all internal streets where the

43:50LDO only requires sidewalks on one side

43:52of local streets.

43:56And subject to securing the necessary

43:58easements, the applicant has offered to

44:00extend Braybrook Way beyond the subject

44:02property to connect with the existing

44:04street network.

44:07The missing segment is relatively short,

44:10approximately 60 to 65 ft in length and

44:13is located within existing public

44:15rightway.

44:16However, as written, there is some

44:18uncertainty regarding implementation

44:20because the connection may require

44:22easements from adjacent property owners

44:24that have not yet been secured.

44:27The offer also does not include removal

44:30of the existing Braybrook Way turnaround

44:32bulb upon street connection.

44:38The applicant has also offered a

44:39condition to put up traffic barriers to

44:41mitigate construction traffic to April

44:43Bloom Lane, which connects to the old

44:46Carpenter neighborhood.

44:48The applicant has not offered such a

44:49condition for the extension of Braybrook

44:51Way on the eastern extent of the

44:52property and which would provide

44:54connection to the Magnolia Estates

44:55neighborhood should the necessary

44:57easements for the extension be acquired.

45:03Staff has evaluated the request with the

45:05imaginary community plan. We note the

45:08carpenter special planning area has one

45:10of the most detailed and place specific

45:12planning frameworks within the community

45:14plan.

45:16The subject property is located within

45:18two carpenter sub areas. The crossroads

45:20village sub area is envisioned as the

45:22historic heart of Carpenter where

45:25development should be particularly

45:26sensitive to the area's historic

45:28character and rural setting.

45:31And the neighborhood south sub area is

45:33intended to consist of detached

45:34residential neighborhoods similar in

45:36scale and character to established

45:38subdivisions.

45:40The village trail is envisioned to

45:42provide place to finding connectivity

45:44and transition between the crossroads

45:46village and the neighborhood south sub

45:48areas.

45:51When looking at the policy guidance of

45:53the special planning area, the proposal

45:55includes architectural commitments

45:57specifically designed to complement the

45:59character of the National Register

46:01Historic District, including

46:03restrictions on exterior building

46:04materials and enhanced design standards,

46:08use form transitions, which are

46:10discussed in the shape chapter analysis

46:12as well, include a development program

46:14similar to the surrounding

46:15neighborhoods.

46:17And the proposal would build the very

46:19first portion of the village trail

46:21through the site to help connect new

46:23residents and existing neighborhoods

46:25with community destinations.

46:29The architectural commitments also helps

46:31meet historic preservation master plan

46:33goals as does the offer for historic

46:35interpretive signage to share the

46:37history of Carpenter.

46:41For the live and shape chapters, the

46:43proposal creates a detached willing

46:45residential neighborhood that adds to

46:47the housing supply in western Kerry

46:49while remaining generally compatible

46:50with the surrounding area.

46:53Transitions are provided through the use

46:55of 10,000t lots 2,000 ft larger than the

46:59minimum required in the R8 district,

47:02primarily located around the periphery

47:03of the development, as well as an

47:05overall density of 2.25 25 dwellings per

47:08acre, which is compatible to nearby

47:10neighborhoods.

47:12For the enriched chapter, the proposed

47:147,000 foot lot community gathering area

47:17may contribute to open space

47:19preservation.

47:20The gathering area also supports broader

47:22live and shape chapter objectives by

47:24enhancing neighborhood design, community

47:26interaction, and overall development

47:29quality.

47:31for the engage and move chapters. The

47:33proposal includes several multimodal

47:35improvements that would enhance safety

47:37and connectivity both within the

47:39development and to the surrounding area.

47:42The dedication of a transit easement

47:44also helps support future transit

47:46service as the area continues to

47:48develop. If construction can be more

47:51fully assured, as discussed in the staff

47:53report, the Braybrook Way extension

47:55would eliminate a gap in the

47:57transportation network.

47:59The staff report also notes the benefits

48:01to removing temporary turnarounds when

48:03streets are extended

48:05and also cites several recent resonings

48:08and development projects where they have

48:09been removed by the developer.

48:12If the bulb is not removed by the

48:13developer during the street connection,

48:15the redundant pavement is likely to

48:17remain as is until the neighborhood or

48:19the town paid to remove it.

48:23A neighborhood meeting was held in

48:25October of 2023.

48:2725 nearby residents participated.

48:30Questions and concerns related to

48:32traffic, privacy, buffers, community

48:35character, the location, design of

48:37stormwater facilities, greenway and

48:39trail connections, street preservation,

48:41and the future layout and architecture

48:43of the development.

48:45The applicant voluntarily held two

48:47additional neighborhood meetings to meet

48:49with neighbors and keep them updated on

48:51the case as conditions were refined,

48:53include including one held earlier this

48:56summer.

48:57The minutes from all three neighborhood

48:58meetings were attached to the staff

49:00report.

49:01There has been light but consistent

49:03contact with neighbors since 2023

49:06regarding the case.

49:10At the June 25 town council meeting,

49:13there were five written comments and

49:14three in-person speakers. The overall

49:17tenor was positive for the case with

49:19questions and comments regarding the

49:21provision of utility stubs to

49:22neighboring properties, a recommendation

49:25for fast growing trees and vegetation

49:27for buffers, and concern with the

49:29extension of Bray Brookway to the

49:30Magnolia Estates neighborhood.

49:33Council questions and comments were also

49:35generally positive for the provision of

49:36robust multimodal facilities and

49:39consistency with the Carpenter special

49:41planning area. specific questions and

49:43the answers for utility connections,

49:45annexation, storm water facilities,

49:48storm water facility amenities,

49:49dimensional standards, transitions,

49:51transportation elements, and

49:53construction traffic mitigation were

49:55summarized in your staff report.

50:00Since the public hearing, the applicant

50:02has added a condition to divert

50:04construction traffic away from the old

50:05Carpenter neighborhood through temporary

50:07barrier barriers on April Broom Lane,

50:10has committed to modest pedestrian

50:12amenities for storm water control

50:13measures using a picklist. has clarified

50:16that sidewalks will be built on both

50:18sides of all streets and has made

50:20technical corrections including revised

50:22terminology to replace multi-use path

50:25with streetside trail for consistency

50:27with the LDO and other technical

50:29corrections requested by staff.

50:34staff offers the following observations

50:36in terms of the cases consistency with

50:38the imagined carry community plan for

50:41the carpenter special planning area live

50:43and shape chapters detached in use

50:47transition to the historic carpenter

50:48crossroads the architectural commitments

50:51and the construction of the village

50:52trail collectively helped to achieve

50:54plan objectives for the move chapter

50:57many policies are met by the provision

50:59of pedestrian infrastructure

51:01and the construction of the village

51:03trail however However, we note that all

51:05connections are not assured per the

51:06caveats included in the zoning

51:08conditions.

51:10For the engaged chapter, the proposal

51:12will add to the area's greenway and

51:14pedestrian network and will provide

51:16access to cultural and historic

51:17resources. And for the enriched chapter

51:19policies, the proposal provides modest

51:22increases to buffers and gathering

51:24space.

51:26This concludes my presentation. Jason

51:29Baron, the applicant's representative,

51:30will provide comments and following his

51:32comments, I'm available to answer your

51:34questions.

51:36>> Thank you, Miss Smith.

51:46>> Uh, good evening, Mr. Vice Chair and

51:48members of the planning and zoning

51:49board. Jason Baron with Morning Star Law

51:51Group. Happy to see each of you tonight.

51:53Um, I'm going to try to keep my comments

51:55brief. I do have a handful of things

51:57that I want to touch on. Uh I want to

51:58out of the gate mention that I'm here

52:00with Juan Montes of MI Homes. MI is the

52:03proposed developer of this site and I've

52:05had the pleasure of working on this

52:07case. Fortunately, not for the entirety

52:09of this case. Lord knows I've worked on

52:10plenty of zoning cases in the town of

52:12Kerry that take three plus years. I've

52:14only been involved in this case since

52:16the fall of last year. Uh and that's

52:18similar to Mr. Montes who recently

52:20joined MI. And since we have taken over

52:22the uh running the case, I will tell you

52:25our engagement with the community has

52:27been uh fairly direct. We volunteered to

52:29have that meeting in June and uh it was

52:32a breath of fresh air. I don't do a

52:34whole lot of work in the town of Kerry

52:35that when we have a neighborhood

52:37meeting, I walk out and say, "Man, that

52:38was a really good meeting. I think

52:40everybody likes this project." But

52:41that's exactly what happened. And I

52:43think if you watched the public hearing

52:45on this case, the comments that were

52:47made at that public hearing, the only

52:48speakers who spoke related to the case,

52:50they may have raised some thoughts

52:52associated with the case, but each

52:53individual speaker who chose to take

52:55time out of their day to show up to the

52:57public hearing spoke in favor of the

52:59case. And I think that is reflective of

53:02uh not just because I'm a likable person

53:04or Juan's a likable person. I think it

53:05is highly reflective of a development

53:08project that has taken advantage of some

53:10bad case history. And what I mean by

53:13that is what I've learned through this

53:14process. I didn't work on previous

53:15cases, but apparently there were

53:17previous attempts to try to reszone this

53:19property for much more dense product.

53:21Apparently town homes have been a

53:23suggestion at some point. So, I think

53:25that the U community, and that was

53:28certainly what I felt when I met with

53:29them back in June, I think they're just

53:31very happy to be dealing with a

53:32developer who's taken a look, has heard

53:35kind of what the community comments were

53:37on those other cases, have been able to

53:40incorporate those comments in a plan,

53:41and have been able to work with the

53:42owners candidly to come up with a

53:44development plan that not only squarely

53:46is consistent with the Kerry community

53:49plan, and we believe that it is entirely

53:51consistent, and I kudos to uh my client

53:54for doing things like working with the

53:55staff on determining what a village

53:57trail is. That's a first of its kind in

53:59the town that exists nowhere else to

54:01date until this case. So that those were

54:02fun conversations because we kind of get

54:04to make it up as we go along. Um but

54:07also, you know, I I think it it again

54:09it's it's reflective of the significant

54:13degree to which people feel this fits

54:16with where it is going to be located.

54:17And I think that that is the high degree

54:19of of commentary that we received. And I

54:21think the the the town council comments

54:23at that uh public hearing were

54:25reflective of that. Even with that, as

54:27you heard, there were uh updates to the

54:29conditions made following the public

54:30hearing. There was a question related to

54:32construction traffic and making sure

54:34that April Bloom wouldn't be opened

54:35early. That condition has been added.

54:37You all have seen that in other cases.

54:39That is not something that's atypical

54:40and we understand why those conditions

54:42are requested and we were happy to add

54:45it. Um I I do want to mention pedestrian

54:48connectivity and then I want to talk

54:49about Braybrook pedestrian connectivity

54:52as was mentioned and I'm going to the

54:55western side of the property is

54:57essentially that village trail and I'm

54:59not going to bore you with all the

55:00details that are included in the

55:01carpenter special planning area

55:03associated with the village trail, but

55:04we have worked closely with staff to

55:06craft a condition that everybody

55:08understands will be enforceable at the

55:10time of development plan and will

55:12achieve what is a unique greenway. And

55:14so the village trail is 12 ft wide,

55:16which is not inconsistent with the

55:18greenway trails and the streetside

55:19trails that you see. It's just going to

55:21be of a different style. It's going to

55:22look different. It's going to feel

55:23different. So that is along the entire

55:25western boundary of the site. We

55:27measured it today. That's 875 ft of

55:31village trail along the entire western

55:33boundary of the site. As you saw during

55:36the presentation and you heard from

55:37Rachel during um her discussion, the

55:40remainder of the site is essentially

55:42encircled with greenways and streetside

55:45trails. The Kit Creek Greenway lines the

55:47entire eastern boundary of the site and

55:50then there's a connection along April

55:53Bloom kind of running east and west. Uh,

55:56sorry the mouse is not cooperating very

55:58well, but there's another connection

55:59down here that essentially creates an a

56:0212- foot wide walking trail, multimodal

56:06trail that encircles the entire

56:08development and collect connects to

56:11adjacent communities as you heard. Um,

56:13the community also is proposing to have

56:15a raised crosswalk to provide

56:17connectivity. And just for your

56:19edification, so we've got 875 ft of the

56:22village trail along the western edge of

56:23the property. We have another 2,620

56:27ft of 12t wide either greenway or

56:30streetside trail creating 3500 linear

56:35feet of greenway. U just to that's 2/3

56:39of a mile. There is 2/3 of a mile of

56:42walking and multimmodal path that will

56:44completely encircle this trail for 52

56:47lots. I've never worked on a community

56:50at the town of Kerry that on a per lot

56:51basis was providing more in terms of

56:54multimodal connectivity than this 52 lot

56:57single family detached community. I I

57:00took the math even further because I'm a

57:01math nerd. That's 42,000 square ft of

57:05pavement devoted to nothing but trails.

57:07That's almost an acre of pavement

57:09devoted to nothing but trails. And so

57:11the point being um it's not an easy site

57:14in terms of making sure you're

57:16addressing all those multimodal

57:17connections, but I I I give give credit

57:20to the staff for working closely with

57:21the applicant, give credit to my client

57:23for making sure that those things come

57:25to life. And you're really going to be

57:26able to create a community that in

57:28addition to the the street, you know,

57:30the the regular sidewalks that you have

57:32adjacent to streets, you're going to

57:34have a very vibrant and active community

57:37for places for people to get out and to

57:39walk. with respect to Braybrook and this

57:42is that connection

57:44right down here. We have no problem

57:47connecting to Braybrook. Our condition

57:49acknowledges that we have no problem.

57:51What we have a problem with is

57:53guaranteeing that in the event that

57:55construction easements are going to be

57:57required from the HOA. We can't

57:59guarantee that anybody's going to sell

58:00us a construction easement. Now, the

58:02town certainly has condemnation

58:03authority. the town chooses to condemn

58:05construction easements for a future

58:07public street, which this will be, we'll

58:09h we're happy to go through that

58:10process. We just can't commit as part of

58:12a zoning condition that we can guarantee

58:14that those things will happen. With

58:17respect to the the temporary turnaround,

58:19which exists in front of those homes,

58:21and you saw it with respect to the the

58:24feedback that was provided at the, you

58:27know, in the neighborhood meetings and

58:28the as well as the town council public

58:30hearing, the neighbors don't want it

58:32removed. They do not want us going in

58:35and removing that temporary turnaround.

58:37I had that conversation very directly

58:39with them in June. They do not want that

58:42move that removed. And so the reason why

58:44those conditions exist in the way that

58:46they do is because it's reflective of

58:48the fact that we can't guarantee that

58:50construction easements can be delivered,

58:52but we'll do our level best. And we know

58:54that the neighbors do not want us in

58:56their front yards ripping up their front

58:57yard, even if their front yard will get

58:59bigger in the process. They just don't

59:01want to deal with that. So, I just

59:02wanted to explain a little bit. We're

59:04not being obstinate. We're not trying to

59:05be problematic. We're just being real

59:07associated with what we can guarantee

59:09and we're trying to keep a handful of

59:10neighbors happier than they than they

59:12otherwise would be. So, with that,

59:14otherwise, we think we are squarely

59:16consistent with the requirements of the

59:17Kerry Community Plan. And we would

59:18respectfully request you all's

59:20recommendation in favor. Thank you.

59:25>> Thank you, Mr. Baron.

59:27Do any members have any questions?

59:32Um just a quick question. I'm just

59:34curious about the density um around that

59:37area um like south east of it. Do we

59:41have some numbers? Like we know what the

59:43density they're asking for about I'm

59:45just curious.

59:46>> I do.

59:59So the proposal is 2.25 dwelling units.

1:00:02Um and the neighboring um communities I

1:00:06just took the nearest platted actual

1:00:08density not the entitled density. Um so

1:00:11old Carpenter is 2.89.

1:00:14U Magnolia Estates 2.1 Carpenter Village

1:00:172.8. So I' I'd say this is fairly in

1:00:20line.

1:00:21>> Yes.

1:00:21>> With those. I've also I've got kind of a

1:00:23graphic as well ones.

1:00:25Mhm.

1:00:27>> Thank you. That was it.

1:00:31>> Um I have a handful of questions. Uh one

1:00:33was I didn't see it on the map. Can is

1:00:35there an idea of where the storm water

1:00:37amenity was going to be on this tract?

1:00:40>> Um

1:00:41>> is it down near the wetlands in this

1:00:42bottom middle?

1:00:44>> So um so general locations are not shown

1:00:46for SCMs on this plan. Um but SCMs will

1:00:49be located on HOA open space and not on

1:00:52residential lots. Um and SCMs will be

1:00:54placed at natural low points adjacent to

1:00:57established draining features and

1:00:59consistent with existing natural

1:01:01draining drainage um patterns and storm

1:01:04water staff did prepare me for that

1:01:06question.

1:01:06>> Yeah, I just I I remember seeing some

1:01:09notes about how the pedestrian amenities

1:01:10were tying and it's like be nice to

1:01:12understand where it was going to be.

1:01:14Um, I also saw a slide that mentioned

1:01:17something about um not allowing

1:01:19construction traffic at one entrance but

1:01:22not mentioning it about at Brayb Brick

1:01:25Way and I just wanted to find out if

1:01:27there was a reason for that. Why doesn't

1:01:29seem like Bray Brook Way would need to

1:01:30be a construction access for this if

1:01:32they can get access off the other

1:01:35streets. So just curious if there was a

1:01:37reason why that was being left off.

1:01:40>> I'll ask Mr. Baron to come up. Sure.

1:01:47Great question. Uh because the folks who

1:01:49live on Braybrook didn't ask for it. I

1:01:51mean, that's that's as simple as answer.

1:01:53We're fine with the condition. Staff

1:01:55mentioned that to us a few days ago

1:01:57about the possibility of adding that.

1:01:59It's not designed for anything other

1:02:01than the fact the folks who live on

1:02:02April Bloom asked for the condition and

1:02:04the folks in Braybrook didn't.

1:02:06>> Right.

1:02:06>> Yep.

1:02:07>> I would I would recommend definitely

1:02:08doing that just because it's doesn't

1:02:10seem like a good access for

1:02:11construction. Definitely not a place

1:02:13where we're bringing traffic through.

1:02:14That's right.

1:02:14>> Yep.

1:02:15>> Um and then for staff, um maybe I missed

1:02:19it. Can you just one more time explain

1:02:21the difference between a greenway and a

1:02:22village trail? I sounds like this is the

1:02:24first one. And

1:02:25>> it is.

1:02:26>> Is it solely serving just the

1:02:27neighborhood or is it tying it to other

1:02:30areas of the greenway?

1:02:31>> So, it'll tie into the larger greenway

1:02:33network. And let me pull up the map. Uh

1:02:41here we go. So it's going to tie into

1:02:43the larger Kit Creek Greenway network.

1:02:46And then you can see all of these dash

1:02:48lines are the proposed trail network and

1:02:50all the solid are the existing trail

1:02:52network. Um so the village trail is is

1:02:55envisioned by the carpenter special

1:02:56planning area as a character defining

1:02:58trail. Um so it has special treatments

1:03:02um associated with it. It's it's a wider

1:03:04corridor. is intended to both separate

1:03:07two sub areas of the special planning

1:03:09area um the crossroads village and the

1:03:11neighborhood south um but then also

1:03:13connect you know the neighborhoods

1:03:15within this area to that historic

1:03:16crossroads area so that's generally

1:03:18going to be up in here

1:03:19>> okay and what kind of special treatments

1:03:22>> um so Mr. I saw signs.

1:03:24>> Yeah. Um, so there'll be two

1:03:25interpretive signs and then the actual

1:03:27materials themselves will be ADA

1:03:29compliant, but most likely a stained

1:03:31concrete or a brush surface. Um, they'll

1:03:34have to be ADA. They'll have to meet our

1:03:36other specs, but here it's envisioned to

1:03:38be a a character defining um greenway

1:03:40that looks different than other

1:03:42greenways in the network.

1:03:43>> Gotcha. And then one last question. The

1:03:46temporary turnaround that Mr. Mr. Baron

1:03:48was talking about is that located inside

1:03:50existing public rightway or is it inside

1:03:53an easement?

1:03:54>> It is in right ofway.

1:03:56>> Okay.

1:03:57So on really you don't you're not

1:04:00required to get home owners permission

1:04:01to remove it. It's really just

1:04:03>> correct.

1:04:03>> Okay.

1:04:04>> Thank you.

1:04:07>> Mandrew Adam. No questions.

1:04:10Questions?

1:04:12>> Um I I did have a I would like to

1:04:15comment on what u Mr. Baron said. I I I

1:04:17remember a um a proposal for town houses

1:04:22and no with no conditions along the side

1:04:25and I think it's the only 70 unanimous

1:04:27defeat I've ever ever sat in on. It was

1:04:31not no thought. This is just completely

1:04:33different. This is uh I appreciate all

1:04:35the the effort that went into it. Um the

1:04:39uh great work on the pick list historic

1:04:41field. I think it's great to have that.

1:04:43Um

1:04:45um and I realize he answered the

1:04:46question. It could get condemned and be

1:04:48be part of the right the could be

1:04:51condemned and connected by the town if

1:04:54they so chose. So it's not up to the

1:04:56developer. And then I guess on that bulb

1:04:59removal removal um if it did get removed

1:05:04it's is town owned.

1:05:07If it got removed is it become the towns

1:05:10or become the HOAs if it got removed?

1:05:16So, so yes, if it were initially

1:05:18removed, it would be it's still town

1:05:20right ofway, but in a circumstance like

1:05:23this, what would most likely happen is

1:05:25the town would then abandon that

1:05:26rightway and in doing so return that

1:05:29property to those adjacent property

1:05:31owners.

1:05:32>> So then they just have they just have

1:05:33more grass to mow

1:05:36>> or a bigger front yard. But yes, yes,

1:05:38they have they have they and Mr. Baron

1:05:40mentioned this. it he I believe he

1:05:42phrased it as even though they would get

1:05:44more property they do not want it

1:05:45removed um and but yes that would happen

1:05:48and so the town is not in the business

1:05:49of keeping right of way it does not use

1:05:52>> okay

1:05:53>> and it would but that's council action

1:05:55so it is not it's not a guarantee so

1:05:57there is a scenario where Mr. Baron's

1:05:59client does remove this and then for

1:06:01whatever reason the town council

1:06:03declines to close that street and it

1:06:05would remain town rightway but

1:06:07traditionally in instances like this it

1:06:10it was put in place and we keep talking

1:06:12about it as a temporary turnaround and

1:06:14that was that is the goal for it to be

1:06:16temporary.

1:06:17>> Okay. Um, and that buffer, it's it's

1:06:21really good in this picture. We're up

1:06:23with the future.

1:06:25The uh are those buffers

1:06:28above and below the gap right now from

1:06:31the other neighborhood to this area

1:06:34because there's no houses that big spot

1:06:37that says future road expansion.

1:06:40Is is that picture or is that hiding a

1:06:42house underneath it? I can't

1:06:43>> Oh, no, no, there's no house under

1:06:45there.

1:06:45>> That's the buffer, too.

1:06:46>> Let me I can get the picture for you. So

1:06:47it's it's still it's kind of a buffer,

1:06:49right? It's not a

1:06:51>> it's public right away.

1:06:53>> Okay.

1:06:53>> Looks like a storm water device.

1:06:55>> Is that a storm water thing going

1:06:56through there?

1:06:56>> That's what

1:06:57>> is that water

1:06:57>> on the northern side?

1:06:58>> Yeah, there's stream buffer here and

1:06:59then this is an HOA lot right here and

1:07:02right here. And so that that's why the

1:07:03condition would be temporary

1:07:04construction easements. The HOA would

1:07:06have to Okay.

1:07:07>> work with them on that.

1:07:08>> That helps. Um and then let me um let me

1:07:12tack on to what Mr. Baron said about so

1:07:15they're going to have a one acre of

1:07:17paved impervious. Is it going to be

1:07:19impervious service? If we're going to

1:07:21pave an acre, a whole acre with greenway

1:07:24trails, are they all going to be

1:07:26impervious because then we're going to

1:07:27cause additional runoff just by paving

1:07:29greenway trails or or do we also have an

1:07:32option to be pvious in in Greenway

1:07:36especially in a special sensitive area?

1:07:39>> It's got to be treated either way.

1:07:41So there are also competing goods in

1:07:43terms of ADA compatibility. So there are

1:07:46some things to think about with that. It

1:07:48will have to meet our trail

1:07:49specifications. So in terms of how

1:07:52pvious different specs are, I'm not able

1:07:54to answer that. Um

1:08:00yeah, but they will they will be ADA

1:08:01compatible.

1:08:04But they can be there are ways to be ADA

1:08:06compatible and be material that's

1:08:10pvious. Right.

1:08:12>> But either way either way they've got to

1:08:14treat it.

1:08:15>> I do I agree. I agree. But they've got

1:08:17But I'm saying it's got to be It just

1:08:19seems like it's a lot. It is a lot and

1:08:21it's great for people to walk on. But I

1:08:23guess it's they have to treat it. So

1:08:24they're going to have to treat that

1:08:25water either way. Uh if it's if they're

1:08:29adding all that impervious. Okay. Well,

1:08:31I just it kind of fits this whole devel

1:08:34um ecological thing here. So, I'm just

1:08:36looking at the storm water and

1:08:38everything. It just seems like there's a

1:08:39lot of a lot of pavement. So, great for

1:08:41the people to walk on. And uh that's my

1:08:44last question. Thank you.

1:08:46>> I think my questions were asked. Would

1:08:49someone make a motion for 2314

1:08:53at your property? I move that the board

1:08:55find uh 23r14 is consistent with the

1:08:59comprehensive plan and all other

1:09:01applicable plans for the reason set

1:09:02forth in the staff report presentation

1:09:04and discussion by the planning and

1:09:06zoning board.

1:09:07>> I'll second

1:09:09any discussion on your motions. Um I

1:09:11think well we well we well put together

1:09:13plan to keep with a historic consistency

1:09:16the conditions match um you know and the

1:09:18work with the staff and and the

1:09:20applicant you know to keep it consistent

1:09:23with the idea of what's going to be

1:09:25built. I think there's been a lot of

1:09:26great work that has been done. Thank

1:09:29you.

1:09:31>> Any other discussion?

1:09:37Um

1:09:39I I know we've we've we've read or heard

1:09:42you may have read or heard that u Ed

1:09:43Yurhod passed away and I sitting with

1:09:46him on the council and knowing all the

1:09:47comments he made about the historic

1:09:49planning district. Maybe it's fitting

1:09:51for me to just say I think that um this

1:09:53is the kind of thing that uh Ed

1:09:55appreciated. He really worked hard for

1:09:57this historic planning district to do

1:09:59what it would do. And uh having many had

1:10:02spent so much time with him talking

1:10:03about this carpenter, I just thought

1:10:06it'd be nice to to mention that now that

1:10:09uh I want to,

1:10:12you know, with him in mind, I'm going to

1:10:14support [clears throat] this

1:10:15wholeheartedly. It's just a major major

1:10:18improvement over what was proposed

1:10:20before and uh hit the direction that I

1:10:22think that uh it would appreciate.

1:10:26Thank you again.

1:10:28All those in favor say I.

1:10:30>> I.

1:10:30>> I. Any oppose state? Nay.

1:10:34Motion carries. As there is no new

1:10:37business. Call this meeting ajourned.