2026-08-13 - City-County Planning Board

03:37Yes, sir.

03:38>> Good afternoon. My name is Jason Grubs.

03:39I'm the chair of the city county

03:41planning board. Welcome to the August

03:4213th meeting of the planning board. At

03:44this time, would you please stand and

03:46join us in the pledge of

03:46>> allegiance

03:50to the flag of the United States of

03:52America and to the republic for which it

03:55stands, one nation under God,

03:58indivisible, with liberty and justice

04:01for all.

04:09Today's meeting is being broadcast live

04:11by Winston Salem TV digital media and

04:13will be rebroadcast at 10 o'clock Friday

04:15morning and again at 4:00 Sunday

04:18afternoon. Additionally, an on demand

04:20recording will be available on the city

04:21of Winston Salem's YouTube channel.

04:23Before we begin this afternoon, I'd like

04:25to recognize Winston Salem City Council

04:26member Cypio, who's joined us today.

04:29Thank you for being here. Our first

04:31order of business today will be the

04:33consent agenda containing items for

04:35which the petitioner is requesting

04:36withdrawal or continuence or items for

04:38which the planning staff has recommended

04:40approval and no one is signed up to

04:42speak in opposition. For our public

04:44hearings today, each side will have a

04:46total of 12 minutes. There is no

04:47rebuttal period. Once the public hearing

04:50is closed and the board goes into work

04:51session, no one is permitted to speak

04:53unless the planning board asks them a

04:55question. The items under section B of

04:57our agenda will require final action by

04:59the elected body, either the Winston

05:01Salem City Council or the Fory County

05:03Board of Commissioners. As such, votes

05:05taken today are recommendations which

05:07are considered by the elected body

05:09during their review of the requests. For

05:12general use resoning requests, the

05:13planning board must consider the full

05:15range of uses allowed in the zoning

05:17district being requested. The petitioner

05:19may not refer to a specific intended use

05:21for the property. For special use

05:23district zoning requests, the petitioner

05:25must identify the intended use or uses

05:27of the site and give specific details on

05:30how the site will be developed. If

05:32you're addressing the board today,

05:33please before you begin your uh

05:35comments, give us your name, address,

05:36and zip code for the record.

05:38Additionally, and this reminder applies

05:40to both staff and board members, as well

05:42as speakers from the floor, to ensure

05:44that our digital media systems properly

05:46capture your remarks, please make sure

05:48you're speaking directly into your

05:49microphone. Okay. First item on the

05:51consent agenda is the approval of the

05:53minutes of the July 9th and July 23rd,

05:552026 meetings. Is there a motion?

05:57>> Move approval.

05:58>> Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr.

06:00Patinho. Any discussion?

06:02All in favor? Son of I.

06:04>> I.

06:04>> Any opposed? That's unanimous. I'm now

06:07going to call on Mr. Brian Wilson to

06:09take us through the consent agenda.

06:18First item

06:25that

06:30you're

06:36[clears throat]

06:47Mic check. There we go.

06:49>> All right.

06:49>> So again, item B1, that's W3695. That's

06:53being automatically continued to your

06:54September 10th meeting.

06:57Our next item is D2. That's PBR 2026-12.

07:02Uh this is the SOAR Academy and

07:03tutoring. Uh they had originally

07:05requested an automatic continuous your

07:07September meeting. Uh they have since

07:09requested a withdrawal. that isn't with

07:11the eight day period uh for the planning

07:15board to to require the planning board

07:16to vote on that withdrawal request. Uh

07:19so unless you have any questions, I just

07:21leave it to you to to vote on that.

07:24>> Any questions for staff?

07:26Is there a motion as to the motion or

07:28the request to withdraw?

07:31>> Um so move to request to withdraw W3696.

07:35>> All right. Second.

07:36>> All right. Any discussion?

07:39All in favor sign of I.

07:41>> I. Any opposed?

07:43>> All right.

07:46>> All right. And our next item is B2.

07:49That's case W3696. The petitioner is

07:52Thomas D. Skinner, Pamela Skinner, and

07:541118 North Trade LLC. They're requesting

07:57to reszone a dual zone GI and LII

08:00property to Pedestrian Business Limited

08:03Use. It's a 7.06 06 acre site located on

08:06the north and south sides of West 12th

08:08Street between North Trade Street and

08:10West Northwest Boulevard. Uh most people

08:12might commonly call this a part of

08:14Industry Hill. You can see the um throw

08:17on my pointer here.

08:19See the site is bounded by um LII zoning

08:22to the south. That's rem alli zoning.

08:24Further to the south there's ped a

08:25mixture of pedestrian business and

08:27entertainment district zoning. And then

08:29uh again across the railroad tracks

08:31there there's um additional uh remnant

08:34legacy LII zoning there and then another

08:36mixture of commercial and residential

08:38land uses.

08:40And this is the uh aerial of the

08:42property. You can see that it does

08:44contain some existing uh industrial

08:46buildings on the site.

08:49And then there's the existing uh alli

08:51zoning there. And then further to the

08:53south, you can see the Archro

08:54Apartments.

08:58And uh this is a part of the North

09:00Central Winston Salem area plan uh

09:02update. And it did recognize the

09:05existing industrial zoning for the site.

09:07However, it is in a special lane use

09:09consideration area that recognized the

09:11potential for adaptive reuse of these

09:13structures and redevelopment of this

09:16legacy industrial site. Therefore, this

09:18request is uh consistent with the area

09:21plan recommendation, especially in

09:22consideration with the redevelopment

09:24that's already under been undergoing for

09:26the last uh approximately less 10 years.

09:28And staff does recommend approval of

09:30this request. Be happy to answer any

09:32questions you might have.

09:35>> Any questions for staff?

09:38>> Good.

09:40>> All right.

09:43>> Um go ahead.

09:45>> Okay. I move that the planning board

09:47>> Mr. Chairman public

09:48>> Yeah. If if you could just ask if

09:50there's anyone here in opposition. I

09:51don't

09:51>> No one signed up to speak in opposition

09:53to this request. Is anyone here opposed

09:55to this recommendation?

09:57All right. Seeing no one, I'll declare

09:58the public hearing closed.

10:00>> I move that the planning board find that

10:02the request is consistent with the

10:04comprehensive plan.

10:05>> Second.

10:06>> Motion by Mr. FBY, second by Mr. Tino.

10:08Any discussion?

10:09>> All in favor sign of I.

10:11>> I.

10:11>> Any opposed?

10:14I move that planning board recommend

10:16approval of W3696.

10:19>> Second.

10:20>> Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr.

10:21Patinho. Any discussion?

10:24>> All in favor sign of I.

10:25>> I.

10:26>> Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

10:31>> All right, Mr. Chairman, we'll move on

10:32to our next case. That's item B3. That's

10:34case W3697.

10:36Petitioner is Brookberry Farm LLC. This

10:39is the Rosewind Town Home site plan in

10:41your agenda packet requesting to reszone

10:44a site that's again dual zone Mus and

10:47RS92 MUS. It's a 1.82 acre site located

10:51at the northwest intersection of

10:52Rosewind Lane and Red Tail Lane. Again,

10:55the eastern part of this site is already

10:57zoned MUS and was a part of the original

10:59Brook reszoning from 2003. The western

11:02side of this development uh is currently

11:04zoned RS9. You can see uh the remainder

11:08of Brookberry to the north and east and

11:10I'll show that a little more

11:11definitively in the aerial and then

11:13there is single family zoning directly

11:15to the west and a mixture of single

11:16family and uh commercial land uses to

11:19the south of the site

11:21and again here is the aerial you can see

11:23Brook is substantially developed since

11:26the original area plan recommendation.

11:29Uh this is a remainder for um that case

11:32that was uh just voted to or

11:34automatically continue to next month.

11:38And uh you can see that this map does

11:40show the flood zone uh significant

11:42amount of flood zone in this property.

11:44However, the developer has already

11:47submitted a uh flood uh flood plane

11:50revision map to FEMA. So that's already

11:52been submitted and then they'll submit

11:54the rest of their requirements with our

11:56erosion control staff as a part of the

11:58permitting process.

12:02And uh this is the area plan

12:04recommendation. It did recommend

12:06intermediate density residential on the

12:08eastern half and then recognize the

12:09existing zoning on the western portion

12:11of the site. So from a density

12:13perspective, this is density neutral

12:15from the single family zoning and meets

12:18the intent of the area plan from the

12:20eastern side of the MUS zoning.

12:24And here is the proposed site plan. You

12:26can see they're um proposing 12 total

12:29buildings and uh or excuse me, four 12

12:31total units in four separate buildings.

12:34Uh they're going to be accessing off of

12:36these uh private drives here. Uh pretty

12:40relatively low uh retaining wall. I

12:42think max height is 5 ft. And then one

12:44uh potential storm water device uh

12:47located here.

12:51And these are the proposed elevations.

12:53You can see these are uh garage style

12:55town homes.

12:57The site plan does meet all UDO

12:59requirements and staff did find that

13:01this was consistent with both uh the

13:03comprehensive plan and the area plan

13:04recommendations. Uh so we do recommend

13:07approval. I'd be more than happy to

13:08answer any questions you might have.

13:11Questions for staff?

13:14>> That's good.

13:17>> No one signed up to speak in opposition

13:18to this item. Is anyone here opposed to

13:20this recommendation?

13:22Seeing no one, we'll declare the public

13:24hearing closed. What's the pleasure of

13:25the board?

13:26>> Uh plan that I move that the planning

13:29board find that the request is

13:30consistent with the comp comprehensive

13:33plan.

13:33>> Second.

13:34>> Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr.

13:35Patino. Any discussion?

13:38>> All in favor sign of I. I.

13:40>> Any opposed? That's unanimous.

13:43>> I move that the planning board recommend

13:45approval of W3697.

13:48>> Second. Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by

13:50Mr. Patin. Any discussion?

13:53>> All in favor sign of I.

13:54>> I. I.

13:55>> Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

14:00>> Okay. Moving on to item um

14:04B4. That's case W3698. This is 360

14:08Vision Builds LLC. Uh this is the Old

14:10Walkertown uh Road Town Home Project and

14:14the site is 1.42 acres located at the

14:17northeast intersection of Old Walkertown

14:19Road and Lane Street. You can see here

14:21the site is uh primarily surrounded by

14:23RS9 zoning to the north and east. Uh

14:26this is the uh railroad rightway to the

14:29south across the Walkertown Road. So

14:30it's pretty um distinct from this single

14:33family neighborhood just to the south.

14:35And then this is the Augburn Station

14:37Activity Center here to the west. That's

14:39zone P uh general use PB.

14:43And there's the site highlighted uh in

14:46yellow. Again, you can see the gas

14:48station and Augburn station um activity

14:50center there. And then the existing

14:53rideway there, the single family homes

14:55bordering the site. The site does have

14:56an existing tree stand uh generally on

14:59the north and eastern perimeter as well.

15:03>> [sighs]

15:04>> And uh this is the uh currently adopted

15:07northeast suburban area plan update. Um

15:09it recognized uh the existing zoning uh

15:12single family residential at a density

15:14of 0 to eight dwelling units per acre.

15:16However, as you're highly aware, the um

15:20post 20 uh 42045 north suburban area

15:24plan draft recommends low inensity

15:26commercial or office uses for that

15:28property. Um that's in recognition that

15:30the site could serve as a good

15:32transition between the higher intensity

15:34allowed uses in Augurn station uh

15:37activity center and then the single

15:39family homes to the north and east of

15:41the site.

15:44And this is the proposed site plan. Just

15:46to highlight again this is uh three

15:49buildings and a total of 11 units. They

15:53are proposing one storm water device. is

15:55just above uh the threshold for

15:56builtupon area and the total acreage is

15:58just above that. So they've got a

16:00proposed storm water device and again

16:02they could go back and resubmit the for

16:04potential no average impact but it just

16:05depends on what's going to happen once

16:07they do their alta survey and all all

16:08that good stuff. Uh they are showing all

16:11required street yard uh and buffer yard

16:14perimeter plantings uh all required

16:17parking areas and they all do meet all

16:19the growth management area 2

16:20requirements. Uh this does meet the

16:22intended and purpose of the uh existing

16:25uh adopted area plan as well as the

16:27general recommendations of the draft

16:29area plan and of course the

16:31recommendations of uh uh 42045 to have a

16:35mixture of housing and the serviceable

16:37land area. Therefore, staff does

16:39recommend approval of this request and

16:41the site plan does meet UDO

16:42requirements.

16:44>> Questions for staff?

16:48>> No one signed up to speak in opposition

16:50to this item. Is anyone here opposed to

16:51this recommendation?

16:53Seeing no one, I'll declare the public

16:55hearing closed. What's the pleasure of

16:56the board?

16:57>> Um, I move that the planning board sign

16:59that the request is consistent with the

17:01comprehensive plan.

17:02>> Second.

17:03>> Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr.

17:04Patino. Any discussion?

17:07>> All in favor sign I.

17:08>> I.

17:09>> Any opposed? That's unanimous.

17:12>> I move that the planning board recommend

17:14approval of W3698.

17:17>> Second.

17:17>> Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr.

17:19Patinho. Any discussion? All in favor

17:22sign of I.

17:22>> I.

17:23>> I.

17:23>> Any opposed? Unanimous as well.

17:29>> All right. Moving on to our next item.

17:30That's uh item B5, case W3699.

17:34Petitioner is a Ralph Davis Marital

17:36Trust Gary T and Jane Angel. Uh this is

17:40the universal epic

17:42uh site plan requesting to reszone an

17:45RS9 zone site to RM12S

17:49the 35.27 acre site located on the east

17:52and west sides of Pan Lane south of

17:54Solomon Drive and again this is the

17:57entire track. They're only proposing to

17:59reszone a portion of that. So this will

18:00be a remainder. So it's not under

18:02consideration today for zoning action.

18:06Uh they are proposing to assemble

18:08additional property on the east side of

18:09Panon Lane. Here you can see the

18:12property is surrounded by RS99 zoning to

18:15the north and west and also to the

18:17south. And then this RM18S uh has

18:20existing apartments. And the GBS that's

18:23further into uh the activity center here

18:26further to the east. And I'll show that

18:27on the aerial.

18:30Again, the site itself is largely

18:31undeveloped. There's a couple of houses

18:33in a couple of locations here. There's a

18:36um community scale church to the south

18:40and uh there is Fiddler's Creek

18:42bisecting the the the larger tract.

18:45They're proposing to remain on the south

18:47side of that. And then they're

18:48assembling this additional property

18:50along the east side to get five

18:51additional buildings. You can see the uh

18:54already constructed apartments and then

18:56uh further to the east that commercial

18:57development there.

19:02And this is the um southeast forcythe

19:05county area plan update l recommendation

19:07map. It does recommend um low density

19:10attached residential at a density of 0

19:12to eight dwelling units per acre. Uh

19:14they are proposing a slightly higher

19:16density at 9.5 units per acre. However,

19:19that's generally consistent with the

19:21recommendation and the intent of the

19:22area plan to concentrate housing uh in

19:25the serviceable land area and especially

19:27near activity centers where they have

19:29access to services and um

19:33transportation.

19:38And this is the proposed site plan. You

19:41can see it's a total of uh 25 buildings

19:43on the west side, five buildings on the

19:45east side of the site, and then all

19:47internal streets are proposed to uh be

19:49private. Uh so they'll a lot of these

19:51access um uh will have 90 degree parking

19:54on the inside to kind of um also

19:57regulate traffic and it's also a pretty

19:59uh geographically tight site. So they're

20:01they're trying to uh use that as dual

20:03use.

20:05Um again, the east side is showing uh

20:07five structures here. uh they'll

20:09separately uh manage uh storm water on

20:12either side of the site. They are

20:14proposing um this uh clubhouse and pool

20:17area in the southeastern section so that

20:19people on the east side of PCON can uh

20:22enjoy that um amenity. And then they are

20:25showing the required 40ft greenway

20:27easement on uh on this side of Fiddler's

20:30Creek. So if uh there's ever funding to

20:32to get that greenway through there that

20:34that that will be there.

20:37Um

20:39there's anything else I need to

20:40highlight? Um they are uh retaining a

20:44fair amount of area and common open

20:45space. It's really encumbered by a lot

20:47of flood zone and stream area. So

20:48there's minimizing the stream crossing

20:50right here. And they are showing all

20:52required buffering against the two

20:54single family homes proposed to remain

20:56on the western portion of the site.

21:00Just to very briefly go over this, they

21:02did submit a required traffic impact

21:04analysis that was submitted to both DOS

21:06since Union Crossroad is an NCDOT

21:08maintained uh road. Um and they the

21:12determination was that they uh need to

21:15restripe uh this part of Solomon Drive

21:17that's to the east of the site. They're

21:19going to restripe that so they have a

21:20left dedicated left turn and through

21:22lane to kind of manage that additional

21:25uh trip generation for the for the

21:26project.

21:30And these are some proposed elevations.

21:37Have several different building types uh

21:39in here.

21:41Uh and again um staff found that the

21:44request is consistent with the area plan

21:46recommendation and the uh general

21:48recommendations of um 42045

21:52site plan does meet all UDO requirements

21:55and recommends approval of this request.

21:57be happy to answer any questions.

21:59>> Questions for staff?

22:02All right. No one signed up to speak in

22:04opposition to this item. Is there anyone

22:06here opposed to this recommendation?

22:09>> Seeing no one, I'll declare the public

22:11hearing closed. There a motion.

22:14>> I move that the planning board find that

22:16the request is consistent with the

22:18comprehensive plan.

22:19>> Second. Motion by Mr. Farby. Second by

22:21Mr. Patin. Any discussion? All in favor

22:24sign of I. I. Any opposed? It's

22:27unanimous.

22:28>> I move that the planning board recommend

22:30approval of W3699.

22:33>> Second motion by Mr. Fairy, second by

22:35Mr. Patinho. Any discussion?

22:37>> All in favor sign of I.

22:39>> I.

22:39>> Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

22:45>> All right, we'll move on to our next

22:46item, B6. That's case W3700.

22:50This is petitioner Randall S. Bernett,

22:53and this is the new Greensboro Road

22:54Apartments.

22:56um requesting to resone from RS9 to

22:59RM8s.

23:01This is a 31.82 acre site located on the

23:04north and south sides of New Greensboro

23:06Road, west of Forest Null Circle. This

23:08is Salem Lake right here. And this is

23:10Salem Parkway right here to the north of

23:12the site. Um this is a portion. So this

23:16uh area um kind of outlining here will

23:18propose to remain RS9. The remainder of

23:20the RS9 property to the south is already

23:22within the uh Salem Lake Park. And then

23:25you have uh some RM18 uh zoning further

23:28to the east of this site.

23:31And this is the aerial. The property is

23:33largely undeveloped. It does contain

23:35some existing single family homes.

23:37Again, the witted area is the part of

23:39Salem Park. Um this part is not a part

23:43of the request. This witted area here.

23:45And then this southern part, I'll go

23:47over that again, but that's proposed to

23:49remain undeveloped.

23:52This is the southeast suburban area plan

23:54ladies recommendation map. It recognizes

23:56the existing zoning. So it does

23:58recommend single family residential uh

24:00the density of 0 to eight dwelling units

24:02per acre. Again um this does meet the

24:05density um aspect of the area plan

24:08recommendation.

24:09And um this is actually in the reservoir

24:12protection area of Salem Lake. So it is

24:14very much a um used to be called the

24:17critical area because it is a water

24:19supply watershed. It's uh within that

24:21onem buffer around Salem Lake. Um the

24:25petitioner is uh concentrating the

24:27amount of built-upon area and this is um

24:30kind of leaving as much available space

24:33uh to remain open to allow um rainwater

24:36and everything else to naturally flow

24:37through the site as possible. So again,

24:40I'll show this overall plan. This

24:42southern area is remained proposed to

24:44remain um as common open space and

24:46undeveloped. And then um there's quite a

24:49bit of um recreation area in the site.

24:53Again, remain proposed to remain

24:55undeveloped here and then behind this uh

24:57building here.

25:00And they are proposing one storm water

25:02management device. Generally speaking,

25:04in the reservoir protection area, you're

25:05only allowed to go up to 12% built upon

25:07area. With storm water management, you

25:09can go up to 30%. And um I believe this

25:13is somewhere right around 25% built upon

25:16area. So, a little bit they've got some

25:17room uh for a fiddle factor. Um the site

25:21plan does meet all UDO requirements. And

25:24I'm just going to go into a little bit

25:25more zoomed in to give you a little more

25:27context. Um this is kind of the the

25:30common meeting area for this, the

25:31clubhouse. And then you've got this nice

25:33recreation area here. And then it does

25:36show all the required thorough affair

25:37and other buffering uh streetyard

25:39requirements.

25:41And last thing, I'll show you the

25:43proposed elevations for this. So again,

25:46as I mentioned, the site plan does meet

25:47all UDO requirements. Uh staff does

25:49recommend approval of this resoning

25:51request, and I'll be happy to answer any

25:53questions you might have.

25:55>> Questions for staff?

25:56>> Uh is any additional filtration required

25:59for that dog park area since it is next

26:02to Salem?

26:04>> That's a great question that I don't

26:06have a good answer to, but my my

26:08suspicion is probably not because it's

26:10really more of a open space programming

26:12requirement. It's not really an

26:14infrastructure um situation, so I

26:16wouldn't imagine that there's any

26:18filtration. However, as you might

26:19imagine, there's lots of folks who walk

26:22their dogs on around S Lake all the

26:23time. So, um yeah.

26:27>> All right. No one signed up to speak in

26:29opposition to this item. Is anyone here

26:31opposed to this recommendation?

26:33>> Seeing no one, I'll declare the public

26:35hearing closed. What's the pleasure of

26:36the board?

26:37>> I move that the planning board find that

26:39the request is consistent with the

26:41comprehensive plan. Motion by Mr.

26:43Fairby, second by Mr. Patino. Any

26:45discussion?

26:47>> All in favor sign of I.

26:48>> I. I.

26:49>> Any opposed.

26:51That's unanimous.

26:52>> I move that the planning board recommend

26:54approval of W3700.

26:57>> Second. Motion by Mr. FY. Second by Mr.

26:59Patinho. Any discussion?

27:02>> All in favor sign of I.

27:03>> I.

27:04>> Any opposed? Unanimous as well.

27:09>> All right. And item B7 will be a public

27:11hearing item. So we'll move on from that

27:16and now we'll move on to B8. This is our

27:18first counting case for uh that will be

27:20here on the consent agenda. So this is

27:22F1673

27:25petitioner TCO Investments. This is the

27:27Camp Halliday uh site plan requesting to

27:30reszone an HBL zone site to HBS the

27:33special use. It's a 1acre site located

27:36on the east side of Peters Creek Parkway

27:38south of Hartman Plaza Drive. And as you

27:40can see here, this is right here at the

27:42uh Davidson County line. The site is uh

27:45bounded by existing commercial landings

27:47to the north. Uh that's a daycare

27:50center. And then you have apartments to

27:51the east in the RM18s with some I

27:54believe a gas station here and some

27:55other um existing commercial uses up and

27:59down the corridor and moving uh going on

28:01into Davidson County as you can see by

28:04this aerial.

28:06So again, it's an already developed

28:07site. It's a contains an existing church

28:14and this is the uh south suburban area

28:16plan update and it does recommend

28:18commercial land uses for the site.

28:21Uh it's also within the Oliver's

28:23Crossing Activity Center.

28:28And here's the proposed site plan.

28:30Again, proposing to reuse the existing

28:33uh church building.

28:35They're going to expand and formalize

28:37some parking areas for that church and

28:39then utilize the existing driveways off

28:41of Peters Creek Parkway

28:44and then uh the addition of an outdoor

28:47play area for the proposed kennel indoor

28:50use.

28:53The site plan does meet all UDO

28:55requirements and the zoning uh request

28:58does uh match the area plan

29:00recommendation and the general

29:01recommendations of uh the comprehensive

29:04plan. Therefore, staff does recommend

29:06approval and I'd be happy to answer any

29:07questions you might have.

29:09>> Questions for staff?

29:12No one signed up to speak in opposition

29:14to this item. Is anyone here opposed to

29:16this recommendation?

29:18Seeing no one, I'll declare the public

29:20hearing and closed. What's the pleasure

29:21of the board? I move that the planning

29:23board find that the request is

29:25consistent with the comprehensive plan.

29:27>> Second motion by Mr. FY, second by Mr.

29:30Patino. Any discussion?

29:32>> All in favor sign of I.

29:34>> I.

29:34>> Any opposed?

29:36>> That's unanimous.

29:37>> I move that the planning board recommend

29:38approval of F1673.

29:42>> Second. Motion by Mr. Fairy, second by

29:44Mr. Patino. Any discussion?

29:46>> All in favor sign of I.

29:48>> I. I.

29:48>> Any opposed?

29:50That's unanimous as well.

29:55>> All right. Now, we'll move on to the

29:56next section of your agenda. Uh so,

29:58moving on to preliminary subdivisions.

30:00This is uh item C1 um major subdivision

30:042026 041. This is the Magnolia Wood

30:07subdivision um up near the Guilford

30:10County line near Baloo Lake. Uh again,

30:12it's a 23 lot major subdivision in an

30:14agricultural zoning district. The site

30:17total is 34.74 acres. Only 31.38 acres

30:21is in forcy county. This is on the south

30:25side of Mount Carmel Road east of East

30:27Shore. See the site uh is bordered by

30:30almost exclusively AG zoning. There is

30:33some RS40 uh zoning further to the

30:35southwest.

30:37And this is the proposed site plan. It's

30:39got one um new public street accessing

30:43the site

30:46and I will show you that's the part in

30:48Guilford County right there. So, the lot

30:50access kind of starts off in Guilford

30:52and then immediately transfers over to

30:54uh Fory County

30:57and then it's got one uh Culdeac Street

30:59and then another offshoot culde-sac

31:01street um to uh kind of utilize the

31:05irregular shape of the the tract uh for

31:08those additional lots.

31:11Something you may have noticed in the

31:13prescriptive conditions. Uh there are

31:15some gravestones that have not yet been

31:17identified by an archaeologist. So

31:19there's some language in there stating

31:21that they need to submit something to

31:22the state archaeology office to verify

31:25whether those are actual grave sites or

31:27not or if they're just some gravestones

31:28that someone left there. Um so there's

31:30some language related to that and

31:32there's some also some language about

31:34the potential for the need for

31:36additional um fire control measures. Um

31:38these are all going to be well and

31:40septic lots. So um they've kind of

31:42having a more robust um fire safety

31:45aspect because this is in a rural area

31:47without access to to public water. So

31:50that that may be an additional

31:51requirement. Otherwise, this does meet

31:54all UDO requirement. Staff recommends

31:55approval. Be happy to answer any

31:56questions.

31:57>> Any questions for staff?

32:02>> All right.

32:04What's the pleasure of the board? I move

32:06that the planning board approve

32:08subdivision 20206041.

32:12>> Second.

32:12>> Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr. Pino.

32:14Any discussion?

32:16>> All in favor sign of I.

32:17>> I.

32:18>> Any opposed? That's unanimous.

32:22>> All right. Now we're on to our next

32:24subdivision. That's item C2. Uh that's

32:27202696.

32:29This is the North Grove subdivision.

32:31It's a 12 lot major subdivision and an

32:33RS40 zoning district. Uh although this

32:35isn't growth management area 3. Um this

32:38is a 13.67 acre site located at the on

32:41the southwest side of Harper Road south

32:42of Cyrus Ferry Road and north of

32:44Ashgrove Lane. This is uh really right

32:47next to Lewisville corporate uh limits.

32:50And you can see the site is bounded by a

32:52mixture of RS40, RS30, and RS20 zoning.

32:55It's large lot uh subdivision.

32:59And this is the proposed site plan.

33:00Again, it's one access road. there's

33:02limited availability or need for

33:04additional interconnectivity here. So

33:06that's the reason they're showing that

33:07one culde-sac street. It is going to be

33:09um uh curb and gutter here just because

33:13the the requirement in GMA3 is to have

33:15sidewalk on one side of the street. So

33:17they're showing that showing the mail

33:19kiosk location entrance sign uh does

33:22meet all other UDO requirements for the

33:24site plan and staff recommends approval.

33:27>> Questions for staff?

33:30I move that the planning board approve

33:32subdivision 20206096.

33:36>> Second.

33:37>> Motion by Mr. Fairy, second by Mr.

33:38Pinño. Any discussion?

33:40>> I've got just a comment uh for

33:43consideration for the developer. I don't

33:45know if he's here, but if the sidewalk

33:47would be pushed a little bit further

33:48away from the side from the street would

33:50be nice. It's just a not a requirement,

33:53but a suggestion a little bit more

33:56pleasant to walk on.

33:59All right.

34:01Any other discussion?

34:03Right. There's a motion and a second.

34:04All in favor sign of I.

34:06>> I.

34:06>> Any opposed? Thank you.

34:08>> That's unanimous.

34:10>> All right. Moving on to the next section

34:12of the agenda. These are your planning

34:13board reviews. Uh so item D1, that's PBR

34:162026-05.

34:18This is the Valmont Hills PRD. Um you

34:21may have noticed in other site uh

34:23iterations it was proposed as a 222

34:26lots. This has actually been pushed down

34:27to 211 lots. They had some site

34:30redesign, including some uh

34:32reconfiguration of the proposed active

34:34open space locations as well as the

34:36storm water management devices. It's a

34:38very large and complicated site, so as

34:40you might imagine, there's a lot of uh

34:42fine-tuning as they kind of get this uh

34:44ready ready to go. Um again, it's 102.85

34:48acre site located at the western

34:50terminus of Mountain View Road and at

34:52the northern terminus of Sun Creek

34:53Drive. This is um of course Muddy Creek

34:56right here and Metal Arcs uh elementary

34:59school is just on the other side of the

35:00creek there.

35:05And this is the proposed site plan. Um

35:08the plan does show um really excellent

35:10internal uh street connectivity. These

35:12are all proposed public streets. They've

35:14uh the developer has worked extensively

35:16with staff to locate active open spaces

35:19in prominent locations with a minimum of

35:22uh grade challenges. And this is a

35:24pretty challenging site from a grade

35:25perspective showing uh multiple storm

35:28water devices on the site and then um

35:31worked with staff to provide a good uh

35:33pedestrian connection further north for

35:36the potential of a future greenway

35:37connection further to north for that

35:39existing uh greenway connection there.

35:41Um just zooming in a little bit on this

35:44plan. Um working with Winston Salem DOT

35:47and engineering staff uh did ask for a

35:51ride ofway here. Again, not to be

35:53constructed further than what's shown

35:55here, but a future rideway for a

35:57potential stream crossing in the future

35:58if that were ever to be funded. So

35:59you'll see some language related to

36:01that, some of the conditions.

36:03Otherwise, the site plan does meet all

36:05UDO requirements and staff recommends

36:06approval. Um be more than happy to

36:08answer any questions you might have. Any

36:11questions for staff?

36:15>> Is there a motion?

36:16>> I move that the planning board approve

36:18PBR 2026 05.

36:22>> Second. Motion by Mr. Fabby. Second by

36:24Mr. Any discussion.

36:26>> All in favor sign of I.

36:28>> I. Any opposed? Unanimous.

36:33>> All right. Now moving on to item D3.

36:35That's PBR 2026-13.

36:38This is Woodland Crossing. It's a 60 lot

36:41PRD in an RS9 zoning district. Uh it's

36:4430.88 acres. Uh located on the north

36:47side of Roamara Drive and west of Ramara

36:49Court. You can see uh 40 right there.

36:56And this is the pro proposed site plan.

36:58Uh again, there's limited availability

37:01for connecting to existing streets. It's

37:03really bounded uh quite substantially by

37:06the creek here and the existing um

37:09development pattern. However, uh the

37:12developer and engineer both worked with

37:13staff to provide some appropriate st

37:15locations. So, if this ever develops out

37:17in the future, we can get some really

37:19needed interconnectivity here. They show

37:21active open spaces at prominent

37:23locations

37:24uh and good internal street design and

37:27lot layout. Uh the the plan does meet

37:30all UDO requirements and staff

37:32recommends approval of this request.

37:34>> Questions for staff?

37:37>> Is there a motion?

37:39>> I move that the planning board approve

37:41PBR 202613.

37:44>> Second.

37:44>> Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr.

37:46Patinho. Any discussion?

37:48>> I meant to mention on the last one, but

37:51uh be nice to see the sidewalks a little

37:52bit further from the the street curb if

37:55possible.

37:58I will mention on this one, this one's

37:59city streets, so the city will pick up

38:01maintenance of these sidewalks. So, I

38:02think it has to be in the rightway for

38:04them to pick up maintenance,

38:06>> but certainly duly noted.

38:09>> Any other discussion?

38:11There's a motion and a second. All in

38:13favor sign of I.

38:14>> I.

38:15>> Any opposed?

38:17That's unanimous.

38:20>> All right. Now, moving on to item D4.

38:22That's uh PBR 2026-14.

38:25Uh this is Hannes Lake phase 4. Uh it's

38:28a 43 lot PRD and RS9 zoning. Uh it is in

38:32the county. Uh it's a 71.81 acre site

38:35located at the northern terminus of

38:36Mount Salem Road and the western

38:38terminus of Cinnamon Hill Drive. This

38:40was actually a already approved phase of

38:44uh Hannes Lake. However, I'm going to

38:46show you in this uh site plan. This

38:50crossing right here was very prohibitive

38:53just from a environmental feature

38:55standpoint. There's some designated

38:57wetlands back here. There would have

38:59been a lot of engineering to get this

39:01crossing. So, they have actually come

39:03back and are requesting to instead

39:05provide a pedestrian connection only and

39:07then they're going to uh again I'll show

39:09you in a cross-section in a moment that

39:11there will be a separate pylon uh bridge

39:14to get an aerial crossing for sewer

39:16here. So that's kind of the basis of the

39:18coming back for this new request. Again,

39:21there's the site is very um disconnected

39:24from pretty much all the other parcels

39:25around it, especially in consideration

39:27of the lake. I'm going to kind of zoom

39:28out a little bit. This is the entire

39:30site plan. You can see all of Hannes

39:32Lake here and then a remainder area back

39:34here. So there's actually quite a bit of

39:36preservation of open space and then the

39:39PRD would be uh right here. There's just

39:42a not a really good a lot of

39:44opportunities for additional

39:45interconnectivity. That's why you're

39:46seeing this one long culde-sac street

39:48here. So there's really a firm basis

39:50here for not requiring internet

39:52connectivity.

39:53>> Uh going back to the site plan, they do

39:54show the required active open space. So

39:56it will stand on its own as its own PRD

39:59again uh with the assumption that

40:01they'll be able to connect in to the

40:02rest of the Hannes Lake development

40:04through that pedestrian bridge.

40:07And this is just a cross-section of that

40:10pedestrian path and then that separate

40:11area crossing for the sewer there. Uh

40:14the site plan does meet all UDO specific

40:17requirements and staff recommends

40:18approval. Be happy to answer any

40:20questions you might have.

40:21>> Questions?

40:22>> I've not seen a requirement for like

40:24this before. At least I don't remember

40:26it.

40:27>> Is it?

40:29>> I don't know. I know there's not a

40:30question there. [laughter]

40:32>> They volunteered this. Okay.

40:33>> Yeah. And again, I think I think it has

40:35to do with the fact that it's all one

40:37project and they need to be able to get

40:39folks to their amenities as part of the

40:41the package

40:43>> and the fact that I think they have to

40:44provide the sewer in order to make these

40:46lots feasible anyway. Um so again, this

40:50wasn't a we didn't require this. This

40:52was volunteered.

40:53>> Okay. All right. Thank you.

40:55>> Um just um the access is coming. It was

40:59hard to look at to read and I know you

41:01just find described it but

41:04>> um so that's the

41:07walk access

41:09>> correct that's an existing public well I

41:11I can't believe that this is platted and

41:13constructed yet but this is where the

41:14access will be off of a public street

41:16over that last phase of Hannes Lake and

41:17then it will snake all the way through

41:19here to this development

41:22>> this

41:23>> and then on that south end connects to

41:28>> it also connects to an existing public

41:30street. Yes, sir.

41:33>> Mr. Figerby, just to give you a little

41:34more context, I believe Mount Salem

41:36Drive eventually goes over to Olivet

41:38Church Road on the west and the Salem

41:42View Road connects back through a series

41:44of other roads to Wessex Road, which

41:47gets you out to Spicewood.

41:49>> Mhm.

41:50>> On the east.

41:51>> Okay. So, it does have access uh via

41:53several existing subdivisions that it's

41:55kind of being built adjacent to to those

41:58major thorough affairs.

41:59>> Okay.

42:00>> You think we'll bring a barge in there

42:01with all the cars on it?

42:03>> Right. [laughter]

42:04Take a boat over.

42:06>> So, are aerial crossings allowed? I

42:08thought that wasn't allowed for sewer.

42:10>> It's not generally allowed, but this was

42:12something that was specifically allowed

42:14based on the engineering design that

42:16they submitted with some additional

42:18profiles to utilities. So I guess for

42:21lack of a better um phrase here, the

42:23proof's in the pudding when they submit

42:25for their asbuilts and everything else

42:26and what they [snorts] what they submit

42:28whe

42:32>> and that's just below the gray of the

42:33pedestrian bridge.

42:34>> Correct. But it is they did require it

42:36to be separated from the predestinian

42:38bridge. So it could be separately

42:39maintained and any ma any ongoing

42:42maintenance isn't going to impact the

42:44bridge and and you know kind of make

42:45that a a situation that the utilities

42:48commission would have to to work out.

42:52>> Interesting. [laughter]

42:54>> Other questions for staff?

42:58>> Is there a motion? Uh, I move that the

43:00planning board approve PBR 202614.

43:05>> Second.

43:05>> Motion by Mr. FBY, second by Mr.

43:07Patinho. I'll just say, I mean, as we

43:09continue to struggle with trying to find

43:11places to put houses, kudos to the

43:13developer for taking some risk at trying

43:16to make something work. Yeah, I think

43:18that's we need more of that. So, um, any

43:21other discussion?

43:23>> All in favor sign of I. I.

43:25>> Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

43:33Mr. Chairman, board will now go back to

43:35case B7 uh for a public hearing and

43:38we'll hear from Rory Howard first. All

43:41right. Before we do that, um Council

43:44Member Joiner snuck in on me over there

43:45behind the wall, but thank you for being

43:47here. And uh I'll just also remind folks

43:50as they come up uh to speak during our

43:52public hearings, please make sure you

43:53give us your name, address, and zip code

43:55for the record.

43:57And with that, Mr. Howard, tell us what

44:00we need to know.

44:01>> All right. Good evening, everyone. Um,

44:05just give me a quick sec to get oriented

44:07here.

44:08All right. So, this is case uh F1672.

44:13Uh, the petitioner is William Penn.

44:16Uh, attempting to reszone a 3.26 acre

44:20site located on the northwest side of

44:22Crim Road uh west of Blues Creek Road.

44:25The petitioner is requesting a special

44:27use limited reszoning from agricultural

44:30to limited industrial limited use um

44:34specifically to add the uses of building

44:36contractors general building contractors

44:38heavy uh warehousing and while still

44:42maintaining the already allowed use in a

44:44zoning district of agricultural

44:46production crops.

44:48So, as you can see here, the property is

44:50located in the northeast portion of the

44:52county in the Baloo Creek area, uh,

44:55located in GMA5, uh, rural area.

44:59Um, looking at the location map here,

45:02you'll see that the subject property is

45:04surrounded by single family homes, uh,

45:06agricultural land, uh, undeveloped land,

45:10uh, overall with a low inensity rural

45:12character. I will also point out that

45:14Crim Road is a, uh, is a local street.

45:18Uh if we look at the subject property

45:21right now, we can see that it is

45:23currently uh mostly graded with a uh um

45:28currently unpermitted uh general

45:30contractor's use that is attempting to

45:33come into compliance uh through this

45:35resoning.

45:38Look at the area plan. We do not have uh

45:41parcel specific recommendations for this

45:43area of the county, but the area is

45:45largely lot large lot residential and

45:48agricultural in nature.

45:52To go to the photos, here's a picture

45:53looking northwestern Crim Road towards

45:55the subject property.

45:57Uh looking north into the subject

46:00property from Crim Road, you can see the

46:02uh the existing building uh and the the

46:05graded site located that is located in

46:08front of the uh of the current business.

46:12Here's a picture looking south on the

46:13subject property across Crim Road.

46:17Picture looking east along Crim Road.

46:19Subject property is to the left. And

46:21finally looking west along Crim Road,

46:23the subject property is to the right.

46:26So, in summary, [sighs and gasps] the

46:28intensity of the request could result in

46:30significant visual, auditory, and other

46:32off-site impacts to nearby residents.

46:34Um, issues such as noise, uh, trucks,

46:38large trucks, etc. that would be

46:39incompatible with the surrounding rural

46:41landscape. [snorts] Um, moreover, the

46:43west is inconsistent with the

46:44recommendations of 42045 to protect

46:47neighborhoods from inappropriate

46:48non-residential encroachment. Um, this

46:52proposed resoning would bring a

46:53highintensity commercial use uh into a

46:57residential area along the local street.

47:00And finally, the proposal is

47:01inconsistent with the northeast rural

47:03policy area goal of locating commercial

47:06and industrial land uses in suitable

47:08locations uh as this proposed uh higher

47:12intensity commercial use is not

47:13centrally located in a beneficial place

47:16uh for the surrounding rural community.

47:19uh in seeing uh therefore zoning uh

47:23recommends denial and I'm happy to take

47:25any questions you may have at this time.

47:28>> Questions for staff? Mr. Lamb,

47:30>> the structure itself would be allowed in

47:32a right. It's just the use that we're

47:34talking about.

47:36>> So Mr. Lamb, there is uh obviously the

47:39egg exemption in the statute. However,

47:41the structure would have to be used for

47:44farm related purposes.

47:45>> Yeah. So unfortunately since the

47:48structure has not been properly

47:50permitted and they're doing a a heavy

47:53contracting business that's one of the

47:54issues,

47:55>> right? Thanks.

47:56>> And the um the building is

47:59non-conforming which you all mentioned

48:02um in the report and you mentioned so

48:04what how how did they get to this point

48:07to now seek reszoning? What are they

48:10changing? This well this was an

48:11enforcement action. This came in through

48:13our zoning enforcement staff and

48:16obviously when we dug a little deeper we

48:18found out no permits had been issued on

48:20the property. So this is their avenue

48:23should this be approved to uh correct

48:26the violation.

48:27>> Okay. Thank you. What nonresidential,

48:30non agricultural

48:33uses are allowed in a I mean like what's

48:36what's the next closest thing to this

48:38that would be allowed?

48:42>> So I've got the uh the permitted use

48:45table up here. I'll just read a few of

48:47them. Uh so there's things like uh well

48:52these are agriculture uh agriculture

48:54tourism child daycare church or

48:58religious institution

49:00uh police or fire station public

49:03recreational facility.

49:06Uh then there's uses allowed with a

49:08planning board

49:11library. Again none of these are really

49:13practical. Private school. Uh then

49:16there's issues or uses allowed with a a

49:20permit from the board of adjustment like

49:22a campground,

49:24uh a habilitation facility, nursing care

49:27institution,

49:29riding stable, shooting range. So

49:31there's there's not a lot of uses that

49:34could really make use of this structure.

49:37>> Special event center.

49:38>> Yeah.

49:41>> All right. Thank you.

49:42>> Any other questions for staff? So a

49:44farmer that's farming out there but

49:46builds the structure and actually builds

49:48some houses on the side, they probably

49:49get away with that. But

49:51>> correct if he's actually farming out

49:53there. But

49:54>> Okay. All right.

49:56Have there been any comments for the

49:57applicant on uh like conditional

50:02uses.

50:03So I guess it based on the uses you just

50:06went through, it doesn't really matter.

50:09But I was just wondering if there's been

50:10any conversation to try to make it a

50:13little more palatable.

50:14>> Uh my understanding, and I know the

50:16applicant or their representative will

50:18uh be speaking later, but my

50:20understanding is that they've been doing

50:23the contracting business out here for

50:24quite some time and hence the investment

50:27they made in this building and I don't

50:30think they really have considered a lot

50:32of other alternatives.

50:35I want to go back to my question for a

50:37minute about other uses and obviously

50:39there aren't any that you rattled off

50:42Mr. Ericen that sound particularly

50:44practical but let's say you were to put

50:46a shooting range special event center

50:49riding stable there are there buffer

50:51yard requirements in in a when they

50:55adjoin other uses

50:57>> a lot of those uh Mr. chair do have use

51:00specific standards like the special

51:01event center. Uh there's also unique

51:05parking requirements at least until

51:07January 1st of 2027 for a lot of those

51:09uses for things like the shooting range.

51:12You're going to have the back stops and

51:14the distance requirements if you're

51:16doing rifle shooting or a variety of

51:18other things. So, so the short answer is

51:21without knowing with a little more

51:22specificity

51:24what some palatable options would be,

51:26it's hard to kind of give any further

51:27information. Other

51:33questions for staff?

51:34>> I guess I struggle with this a little

51:36bit in terms of if they were farming the

51:39field next to them

51:41>> and using the equipment for that, it

51:45would be okay.

51:47But there's no is there no agricultural

51:49activity in the area related to this at

51:52all? Rory, is there any uh any activity

51:56related to this from an agricultural

51:58perspective?

52:01>> Um, in other words, does the property

52:03owner

52:04>> We would probably I mean, again, I I

52:06don't want Rory to answer that because I

52:07don't think that we know. I mean, I

52:09mean, we we can ask the petitioner that.

52:11I mean, you know, the the the thing

52:12about it is again, I think through the

52:14enforcement part of this, you know,

52:17there were some questions asked and some

52:20answers given that kind of led us to

52:22where we are. Uh, you know, I don't

52:24think there's any question that they are

52:26operating a uh heavy a building

52:30contractor heavy operation. Now, whether

52:32or not they have some things that would

52:33qualify under the A exemption for

52:35farming, I think that's a a question for

52:37another day. Uh but I mean it it's not

52:41lost on us that you know you can do a

52:45lot of things in farming under under an

52:48a exemption

52:50>> and a lot of it has the same type of

52:52impacts and those kind of things but in

52:54this context I don't think there's a

52:55question whether or not they are

52:58operating a heavy general contractor

53:00heavy operation.

53:03Um, so you know, again, but I I think

53:06>> okay,

53:07>> probably ask that question to the

53:08petitioner or the representative

53:09whenever they get up here and they might

53:10be able to fill in whether or not they

53:12do have any type of an a

53:15focus on the remainder of their

53:17property.

53:17>> Okay. Thank you.

53:23>> All right. Any other questions for staff

53:26before we hear from the petitioner?

53:30All right. We'll open the public hearing

53:31on this matter. Signed up to speak in

53:33support. Um I've got Blake Creme. If

53:36you'd come up and give us your name,

53:38address, and zip code for the record.

53:40And the proponents have a total of 12

53:42minutes.

53:49My name is Blake Creme. Uh 4805 Brinkley

53:53Road, Blues Creek, North Carolina. Zip

53:55code 27009.

54:03So, I'm here uh on behalf of reszoning

54:05the 3.26 acres on Creme Road. I

54:10currently operate the construction

54:12building contractor business that is

54:15housed on that property right now.

54:19This business has operated on the

54:21property since 1994

54:24uh give or take a little time there by

54:27my father who got out of it through a

54:31short period during the recession of

54:33'08.

54:34Since then I have taken over and decided

54:37I wanted to pursue in contracting and I

54:40also am an advocate farmer. So I farm

54:43personally. I tend the land. Um I'm a

54:46rowcrop farmer. I farm roughly 125 acres

54:49of soybeans. I raise beef cattle. I've

54:52raised my own hay. A little bit of

54:54everything. I just cannot feed my

54:58family, support the habit solely off the

55:00income of farming. That's whenever I

55:04pursued into the building side of

55:07things. U since then we uh you know our

55:12business is a small family operated

55:15organization. Um, we employ 15

55:17individuals out of the location we see

55:20daily. Um, I've had three individuals,

55:23including my mother and I, and one more

55:25that would potentially be our daily

55:28commuters to this property. Uh, if

55:31things was to move forward, um, within

55:34all of this, I operate, uh, large

55:38trucks, dump trucks, uh, for the

55:40company.

55:42um they [clears throat] are commercially

55:43tagged.

55:45So that is what has led to the light

55:47industrial

55:49request here. Um I also out of that

55:52property I house my farm equipment. I

55:54have combine inside the building right

55:56now. So the building has all intentions

55:58of being used for a uh but also sharing

56:03with the the building side of it as

56:05well. [snorts]

56:07The property will always be agriculture.

56:10Uh the entire partial that is 55 plus

56:14acres will always be left in AG as long

56:17as I'm around because I will always

56:19farm. That's that's where my passion's

56:21at. That's why it's why I do it. I mean,

56:23it's not sure ain't for the money. I can

56:25promise you guys that. Um

56:28why that's why we have proposed 3 acres

56:32um instead of the entire 55 is because

56:34we want to keep this as minimal as

56:35possible.

56:37In the process of submitting this

56:39request, I have reached out to numerous

56:43adjacent land owners um who are in

56:46support of this movement. I have got a

56:48list here that I would be happy to share

56:50with you all if you would like. I

56:52printed off hard copies so that way you

56:54could have them in hand. Um, but I I did

56:57reach out and have a very good support

57:00side for this movement. I don't want to

57:03be a nuisance to any of our neighbors.

57:06I'm not here to cause harm. I'm not here

57:08to cause, you know, any trouble. I don't

57:10want any conflict with with adjacent

57:13neighbors. Um, I just want to solely

57:16operate a small family operating

57:18business off of this farm that has been

57:20in the family for numerous generations

57:23as well as continuing to operate the

57:25farm at the same time. [snorts]

57:28Um, I understand that this is a rural

57:29area and there is it's not a long-term

57:33industrial

57:35proposed area. Uh, however, there are

57:37numerous commercial businesses in the

57:39area that do operate. So, we would not

57:42be the first commercial business in this

57:45territory. Um, there are there are a few

57:48more that are within

57:51a half to one mile. Um, some a little

57:53bit further. There's a [snorts] local

57:55Dollar General up on the corner. Um,

57:59we've put a lot of thought into the

58:00traffic that we put on this small rural

58:02road. uh we you know by operating three

58:06daily

58:07individuals that would be housing to

58:09this building for the building

58:12commercial side of things it would still

58:15maintain a low traffic uh count. Uh we

58:17do have the heavy trucks that would be

58:19leaving you know daily. They we operate

58:22roughly 7:30 2. We you know we try to be

58:26mindful of our neighbors. we're not

58:27going to be coming in and late at night

58:29operating backup alarms and uh those

58:31kind of things.

58:34There has not been a buffer zone

58:37proposed on the site plan. Um as I have

58:41since put into consideration a a

58:44operate, you know, putting in a buffer

58:46zone um for landscape buffer um or or

58:51whatever could be reached in an

58:53agreement if this was to move forward.

58:56So, we would be looking to put in a type

58:57four buffer zone if required or go above

59:00and beyond if that would if that would

59:03be required. Um,

59:09again, this is not a spot zone, so I

59:12don't want it to come up or be thought

59:14of that this is being requested

59:17if passed for future growth. Um there's

59:21kind of a growth period to where in the

59:23business I can substain out of this

59:26small agriculture building and I have no

59:28intentions of ever growing this to a

59:31large heavy trafficked

59:36operation to where it is, you know,

59:38you're talking double digits of

59:40vehicles, heavy traffic, um heavy

59:43equipment, that kind of stuff.

59:46um if it ever was to reach that point um

59:48we would obviously

59:51look at going to other areas to where it

59:53can handle a large scale company. Um but

59:56with that being said, there's there's no

59:58intentions of that here. It is just a

1:00:00young individual who is operating a

1:00:02business but also operating a family

1:00:04farm and and has all the long-term goals

1:00:07of keeping this operation going. Um,

1:00:12with that being said, like I say, we um

1:00:15we're open to discussions. We're open to

1:00:17work with everyone around uh with the

1:00:20board and however we can because the

1:00:23building can be brought to commercial

1:00:26code if required. Um, it has solely been

1:00:29used as a storage shed for equipment and

1:00:33I do I've worked on heavy trucks um and

1:00:35rain events and harsh weather. So uh but

1:00:39everything around there can be brought

1:00:41up to commercial standard um as

1:00:43required. So um

1:00:46with that being said um open to any

1:00:48questions you know that I can answer for

1:00:50you all. And

1:00:53um I have a question. You mentioned your

1:00:56farming and soybeans.

1:00:59They're on this property but the larger

1:01:03piece of land. Is that what you were

1:01:05saying?

1:01:05>> They are. And also uh next door on some

1:01:08adjacent neighbors uh farm adjacent land

1:01:11owners property as well.

1:01:13>> Okay.

1:01:14>> And that would be on Creme Road.

1:01:17The other farm property is on Creme

1:01:19Road.

1:01:20>> Okay.

1:01:21>> How many head of beef cattle?

1:01:23>> Well, I had nearly a hundred.

1:01:26>> Okay.

1:01:26>> And uh last October my hay barn caught

1:01:29fire, burn up. I lost every bit of hay.

1:01:32Uh lost a machine in it and everything.

1:01:35So, it was uh late October and I sold

1:01:38every one of them and that's what got me

1:01:41into the row crops this year and and it

1:01:44saved from purchasing hay all winter

1:01:46long.

1:01:48>> That's way to find a bright side, I

1:01:50guess, on that. Um, so I guess I'm

1:01:53hearing you say that

1:01:55potentially you would be open to some

1:01:59kind of modification of whatever site

1:02:02plan you come up with to try to buffer

1:02:04some of the impact at least in terms of

1:02:08how the site's laid out, how it may

1:02:11impact other adjacent properties.

1:02:15>> Yes, sir. Okay. What about

1:02:18can can we impose use conditions

1:02:22or or time time limits?

1:02:25>> I guess not. Probably

1:02:26>> you can. It's just one of those things

1:02:28time limits and you know operational

1:02:31times and those kind of things become

1:02:32difficult to enforce because if they're

1:02:35again if an emergency comes up and you

1:02:37know there's a reason why they get

1:02:38called out at night. I mean and or you

1:02:40know again we have to see it happen in

1:02:42order to enforce against it. Generally

1:02:45speaking, we don't work those, you know,

1:02:46we don't work those hours. It's not

1:02:48impossible, but generally speaking, we

1:02:49try to avoid conditions of approval

1:02:52related to things that are difficult to

1:02:54enforce. Again, keep in mind this is an

1:02:57L and not an S. If they wanted to

1:02:59create,

1:03:01you know, use conditions related to

1:03:03increased buffering,

1:03:05um, you know, those kind of things. If

1:03:07they wanted to propose a fence, I mean,

1:03:09you know, things that are tangible and

1:03:10that we can see and that we can measure.

1:03:13um you know things like that but hours

1:03:15of operation those kind of things become

1:03:17more difficult to do.

1:03:19>> Okay.

1:03:20>> Not impossible but

1:03:21>> is there anything in the rules that

1:03:22talks about percentage of time of a

1:03:25particular use

1:03:27like if it's 80% a and again that would

1:03:32sort of be uninforcable I guess unless

1:03:35you set up

1:03:36>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean again cuz what you

1:03:38know what what the percentage is today

1:03:40may not be the what the percentage is

1:03:41next week or next month. I mean it may

1:03:43be different in the winter than it is in

1:03:44the summer. I mean obviously

1:03:46construction is seasonal. It's just that

1:03:48would be one of those things that would

1:03:49be difficult to do. Um

1:03:52>> a lot of times though there's language

1:03:53about primary use. So

1:03:58>> if you I'm just trying to figure out

1:04:00>> what's primary, right?

1:04:01>> Primary use versus

1:04:04>> Yeah. you know again but in this context

1:04:07I mean if you have provisions in the

1:04:11ordinance related to

1:04:14um

1:04:17obviously you have a and a exemption

1:04:19those kind of things you have some

1:04:20ability to do some

1:04:23um

1:04:26again I don't know whether his house is

1:04:28on this property adjacent to this

1:04:29property etc there are some things in

1:04:31there related to home occupation but

1:04:32there are limits on the number of veh

1:04:34vehicles, the amount of outdoor storage,

1:04:38things that the the site as it's

1:04:41currently developed wouldn't be able to

1:04:43meet. So there, you know, there's not

1:04:44really any way. I mean, I appreciate the

1:04:46the thought. I don't think there's a way

1:04:47to thread the needle that way either.

1:04:53Any other questions for Mr. Crim?

1:04:58How much time is left?

1:05:00>> Five minutes remaining.

1:05:01>> There's five minutes remaining. Is

1:05:02anyone else here to speak in uh support

1:05:06of this

1:05:09item?

1:05:10All right. Thank you, Mr. Krenum.

1:05:12>> Thank you.

1:05:12>> Um if there's not, then we'll shift to

1:05:15the opposition. Um who will also have 12

1:05:18minutes to divide up however you'd like.

1:05:21Um signed up first. I've got Chris

1:05:23Crump. If you'd come up and give us your

1:05:25name, address, and zip code for the

1:05:26record, please.

1:05:32Uh Chris Crump, 8096 Blues Creek Road,

1:05:3527009.

1:05:38Uh I live in adjacent to this property.

1:05:43Um been watching growth since 2024,

1:05:48trees being cut down. Um I've run a

1:05:52agurism farm on 48 acres called Dogwood

1:05:56Farms.

1:05:58I've been woken up at 5 after 5 trucks

1:06:03running, backup alarms, beeping.

1:06:07Uh, and I would love if if I had more

1:06:09than 12 minutes, I would love to show

1:06:11you the all the videos that I have from

1:06:14walking through my bedroom to the front

1:06:16door videoing

1:06:19track hose slamming in the back of a

1:06:21truck dump truck. It's ridiculous. I

1:06:25don't know what world he's living in,

1:06:27but it's it's not reality. Uh there's

1:06:30three names on the list that he he's

1:06:32turned in that has requested to be taken

1:06:35off because they they aren't for this.

1:06:38One wanted to be neutral. Two said they

1:06:41weren't for it. Rory should have have

1:06:44those emails from today. I just saw the

1:06:46list two hours ago.

1:06:49I'm not for it. I appreciate the board

1:06:53doing the plan of the 20 42 45 whatever

1:06:59we when I bought my farm in 2003 this

1:07:04wasn't going on.

1:07:06I cleared out all that land myself. It

1:07:09this land wasn't handed down to me. I'm

1:07:12still paying farm credit for it every

1:07:14month. That's why I'm doing the aggra

1:07:17tourism. I'd like to hand that down to

1:07:20my son and that that's a blessing.

1:07:24I'm

1:07:26I can't believe

1:07:28the the shine that was just put on up

1:07:32here saying that there's no impacts on

1:07:35the surrounding people.

1:07:38A lot of the people that live around

1:07:39this property are over 80 years old,

1:07:43hard of hearing, and they don't hear a

1:07:45lot of these things, but they see it.

1:07:48There's a a lady here with us today. I'd

1:07:51like for all the people opposing it

1:07:53raise their hand that that come with me

1:07:55today.

1:07:56Um

1:07:59it's a problem. This this was done

1:08:03out of intention of let's say we're

1:08:06farming. They do they do grow some

1:08:08crops. I'll give them that.

1:08:11But this four bay shop has had trucks in

1:08:14it since it was the doors were put on

1:08:16it.

1:08:17There's operations going on at 10:00 at

1:08:20night, just like Tuesday night, trucks

1:08:23coming in. They also operate a paving

1:08:26company. As you well know, paving

1:08:29usually is done at night when there's no

1:08:32traffic, no cars parked in parking lots.

1:08:37This property was not like this. When

1:08:40everybody behind me come to Blues Creek,

1:08:44that is the biggest thing. And now we're

1:08:47if it gets reszoned,

1:08:50it's it's just a foot in the door. This

1:08:53will this will move on to other areas.

1:08:57And I'm I'm just wondering why this got

1:09:00built here and they they don't live

1:09:03close to it. They're they're within four

1:09:06miles of this place.

1:09:09One reason they don't want to hear this

1:09:11mess or don't want to see it.

1:09:14I I ask you to look at the papers, the

1:09:17the aerial photos,

1:09:20and the first page was from Mr. Crim's

1:09:24Facebook page, and that will tell you

1:09:25everything that was intended for this

1:09:28place, not farman.

1:09:30And I'd like to just hand over the rest

1:09:32of my time to the other people that came

1:09:34with me. Thank you for your

1:09:35consideration.

1:09:36>> Thank you, Mr. Crump. Um, how much

1:09:39time's left?

1:09:40>> Eight minutes.

1:09:41>> Eight minutes. Next up, I've got um

1:09:43Jesse Ryerson.

1:09:46Come up and give us your name, address,

1:09:48and zip code for the record, please.

1:09:49>> Jessie Ryerson, 6956 Blues Creek Road,

1:09:52Blues Creek, North Carolina 27009.

1:09:56I've been living out there 29 years.

1:09:59I've seen it get developed more and

1:10:01more. You know, I work construction, so

1:10:04seeing houses being built, kind of

1:10:06cutting my own throat to be no, we don't

1:10:09want another subdivision out here. But

1:10:12the trucks have got so bad. My house was

1:10:15built in 1948. I live close to the road.

1:10:18They're coming by. I'm sitting in my

1:10:19living room. The whole house is

1:10:20vibrating.

1:10:22We've got the power plant stuff. We

1:10:24can't do anything about that. They They

1:10:26got to get their coal. They got to get

1:10:28their ash out of there. But I have a

1:10:32lease on a hunting area near Mr. Crims

1:10:36and it's late at night. It's early in

1:10:38the morning. Unbelievable. For save that

1:10:42three people were coming in and out of

1:10:44there. I rode by there today on way up

1:10:46there. There massive amounts of

1:10:48equipment back there. Tractor trailers,

1:10:51big TD bulldozers. I mean, it's

1:10:53definitely not something you want to

1:10:55live near. I'd like to live on Brinky

1:10:58Road so I wouldn't have to hear it.

1:11:00But I have to live where I got. I'm

1:11:03stuck there. So, you know, I'm

1:11:05definitely against it. The traffic's

1:11:07unbelievable. There's been 17 wrecks on

1:11:11my road in the last year. It's a 45 mph

1:11:15zone. Everybody runs 60. Lots of curves

1:11:18in it. These big trucks. It's just it's

1:11:21unbelievable. So, I love it to be

1:11:24agriculture out there just like it was

1:11:26when I moved because the place is

1:11:28beautiful. Mr. Crump's place is unbeliev

1:11:31his flower farm is just beautiful and

1:11:34he's got that mess beside him. I mean it

1:11:37it's

1:11:38like to see it go away. Thank you.

1:11:43>> Thank you, Mr. Harrison. How much time's

1:11:46left?

1:11:46>> Six minutes.

1:11:48>> Next up, we've got Annette Edwards.

1:12:01Hi, I'm Annette Edwards, 8095 Blues

1:12:04Creek Road 2709. This is my mother,

1:12:07Linda Moore.

1:12:07>> Speaking to the microphone. I'm sorry.

1:12:09>> Sorry. Hi, I'm Annette Edwards, 8095

1:12:12Blues Creek Road, 2709. This is my

1:12:14mother, Linda Moore. She lives at the

1:12:16same address. Um, I grew up in this

1:12:19neighborhood, the land that Mr. Crump

1:12:21has. I used to run that as a child

1:12:24through the woods playing. first saw my

1:12:26first wild red fox on that property.

1:12:30Went all through that property. I've

1:12:31watched it grow over the years. I've

1:12:33watched a farm be built from Mr. uh

1:12:36Crump. It's beautiful. I look out my

1:12:38kitchen window. There's beautiful farm.

1:12:41I look to the right now. I see a

1:12:42warehouse. The trucks are coming in and

1:12:44out. They're loud. They're noisy.

1:12:46They're disruptive. I work at a

1:12:49hospital. I get home at 11, 12,

1:12:51midnight. One night there was a dump

1:12:53truck sitting at the main road with

1:12:55lights on to 2 3:00 in the morning just

1:12:58sitting there. My mom and I live

1:13:00together. We have no men in our house.

1:13:02She's 80 years old. It was scared me.

1:13:05She's in her 80s. It scared me. Should I

1:13:07call the police? Why is this dump truck

1:13:09sitting out there that late at night

1:13:10with lights on? We don't want it in the

1:13:13neighborhood. We want it country. We

1:13:15want it agriculture rural. We don't want

1:13:17it industrialized. We just want a

1:13:19peaceful, calm area to live in. We don't

1:13:22want all the noise.

1:13:24Do you have anything to say?

1:13:25>> Well, I'm I'm just used to a quiet

1:13:29neighborhood [laughter] and and I just

1:13:33have a fear that this business might

1:13:37increase through the years and possibly

1:13:41cause us to lose value in our house.

1:13:46I hate, you know, I just

1:13:50rather have a peaceful, quiet

1:13:52neighborhood.

1:13:55>> Okay.

1:13:57>> Thank you very much to both of you. How

1:14:00much time's left?

1:14:01>> Four and a half minutes.

1:14:02>> All right. I've got Chelsea Tar.

1:14:08>> Hi, my name is Chelsea Tar. I live at

1:14:118340

1:14:12Cruise Way. Um

1:14:1727009

1:14:21I had a lot to talk to you about and

1:14:25about the use case and how but all of

1:14:29that has been covered. This is not

1:14:30what's appropriate for the area. It's

1:14:32not what's appropriate for my family.

1:14:35the other families here. We have young

1:14:37drivers learning how to drive on this

1:14:40road, turning in and out, and it's

1:14:43dangerous and

1:14:46it's unappealing. And

1:14:50why would we trust someone to

1:14:55make nice with the rules that are in

1:14:57place when they have not made any effort

1:15:00to do this since I don't know 94 2024?

1:15:05Not sure. But I've only been at my

1:15:08property since 2019.

1:15:12Planning on being there a very long

1:15:14time.

1:15:16If he thinks this is such a great thing

1:15:18for the neighborhood,

1:15:20why isn't he doing it on Brinkley Road

1:15:22where he lives miles away?

1:15:27The wildlife,

1:15:29our children don't deserve this. Our

1:15:32property values

1:15:34that just skyrocketed apparently

1:15:37according to our tax values

1:15:40don't deserve this.

1:15:43Thank you.

1:15:44>> Thank you.

1:15:46How much time's left?

1:15:47>> Three minutes.

1:15:49>> Three minutes. Is there anyone else here

1:15:50that would like to speak in opposition

1:15:52to this proposal? Come on up. Give us

1:15:55your name, address, and zip code,

1:15:56please.

1:15:58>> My name is Sarah Care. I live at 7985

1:16:02Pearree Lane, 27009.

1:16:05My family and I, who are all here today,

1:16:08have lived at our house for the past

1:16:10seven years. We moved into our house in

1:16:132019 and we love our corner of the

1:16:18world. We love it. We see deer. We see

1:16:22uh turkeys. We just love being there and

1:16:25we've had a wonderful time so far. Our

1:16:27neighbors have been very kind to us and

1:16:30we're just thrilled to be there. So, I

1:16:32was reading over the notes that I think

1:16:36have been submitted to you all. And of

1:16:37course, we're concerned about the rules

1:16:40not being followed with this particular

1:16:43request. And so, that concerns us

1:16:47because we understand the ramifications

1:16:49of that, where it could go. And as

1:16:52Chelsea said, why would we expect him to

1:16:55make right when these

1:16:59things have been ignored thus far? So,

1:17:01we would just appreciate your um

1:17:04consideration and we hope you will deny

1:17:08this request. Thank you.

1:17:10>> Those uh deer and turkey, if you'll send

1:17:11them Mr. Ryerson's way, I think he'd

1:17:13probably appreciate it.

1:17:16Um, anyone else like to speak in

1:17:18opposition?

1:17:20All right.

1:17:22There's no one else, then we're going to

1:17:24declare the public hearing closed.

1:17:28Any discussion?

1:17:30So, why did it take so long for this to

1:17:32come up in the zoning violation?

1:17:35>> Well, I can't speak to and again, you

1:17:39know, I don't know the whole history and

1:17:41the whole context of how all this has

1:17:43evolved over time. I mean, I think there

1:17:45has been a company, a hauling and

1:17:47grading company that's been operating,

1:17:49whether it's been operating from this

1:17:51location the entire time, whether it's

1:17:52been here, whether it's been on Brinkley

1:17:54Road, could have always been here. I

1:17:57don't know the if if you and I don't

1:17:59know whether we have the PowerPoint

1:18:01pulled up. You can go back and look. The

1:18:04area between [clears throat] Crim Road

1:18:07and the building

1:18:10used to be all woods and you couldn't

1:18:12see anything. So whenever the building

1:18:14was built, it was cleared and

1:18:18it became visible. And again, I don't

1:18:20know whether the visibility

1:18:24drew the eyeire or whether it's the

1:18:26increased activity. If there is

1:18:28increased activity now as compared to

1:18:30pre-recession,

1:18:32essentially

1:18:34it was only known to us when we got the

1:18:36complaint. I'm not sure what led why the

1:18:39it took so long for the complaint to get

1:18:41here, but the the aerial in its current

1:18:45state right there, if you went back to

1:18:46the 20

1:18:48aerial, there was no clear there was

1:18:51there were trees along Creme Road on the

1:18:55subject property, probably at least

1:18:57about a third of the way into it. So,

1:18:59you couldn't see anything. The building

1:19:01wasn't there.

1:19:03>> Um, so

1:19:04>> operations evolved clearly. Okay.

1:19:09>> So there was question earlier um you all

1:19:13were talking about. So um it if this is

1:19:19agricultural

1:19:20and they

1:19:22farm as they have claimed to do done.

1:19:27What

1:19:29causes the inconsistency with them also

1:19:34doing other activities on the property?

1:19:37Um, is it that I know the question um

1:19:41that was brought up was like is there a

1:19:43percentage of or a primary use or

1:19:45something if I'm what I'm saying makes

1:19:48any sense what I'm trying to get to. I

1:19:50think where I know where you're going,

1:19:51but again, the the distinction here is

1:19:53that the use that's operating there is

1:19:55building contractor heavy

1:19:57>> and a building contractor heavy use is

1:20:00not allowed in AG zoning.

1:20:02>> All right? You know, if if if the

1:20:05building were built under an aggion

1:20:09and you had heavy machinery and you had

1:20:11dust and you had noise and you had

1:20:14vibrations, you had everything else that

1:20:16are commonly associated with

1:20:18agricultural type uses. We wouldn't be

1:20:21here because it would be an aex exempt

1:20:23use. I mean, you know, this building if

1:20:26it were for agricultural purposes solely

1:20:28could be built without a building

1:20:30permit. the only thing they would have

1:20:32to get would be an electrical permit

1:20:33because Duke Power won't set a meter

1:20:35without it.

1:20:37>> But the A exemption gives a lot of

1:20:39privileges that

1:20:43purposefully set forward in the statutes

1:20:46u to allow

1:20:49that without nuisance complaints and

1:20:51those kind of things. But that's while

1:20:53there is an agricultural component

1:20:55there. The distinction here is this is a

1:20:57building contractor heavy use admitted.

1:21:02I mean there's never been any attempt to

1:21:04hide that. They have always said that's

1:21:05what you know that they've said since

1:21:07day one that's what they're doing here.

1:21:09That's the distinction. If they were to

1:21:11remove, let's say that, you know, again,

1:21:14either tonight they decided to remove it

1:21:16or, you know, again, if the planning

1:21:18board recommends denial and the county

1:21:19commissioners ultimately deny and they

1:21:21move their operations from this

1:21:23location.

1:21:26Theoretically, the building can remain,

1:21:28the gravel can remain, etc. as long as

1:21:31they meet the a exemption and they're

1:21:33only using the building for agricultural

1:21:35purposes. It's the use of the general

1:21:38contractor heavy that violates

1:21:42the ordinance and is what is

1:21:45inconsistent with the recommendation in

1:21:47the plan.

1:21:48>> True.

1:21:49>> Okay. That's what I was looking for.

1:21:55>> Other thoughts, comments?

1:21:59Yeah, I think a heavy buffer should we

1:22:02should the board decide to move forward

1:22:04with something like this would certainly

1:22:06be a requirement to

1:22:09at a minimum visually

1:22:12improve how things look out there.

1:22:17>> Just just to clarify what the UDO would

1:22:20require. Again, this is uh what they put

1:22:23forward is a limited use request without

1:22:26a site plan. If the commissioners were

1:22:28to approve the limited industrial zoning

1:22:31out there and they tried to make this

1:22:34right, essentially the UDO would require

1:22:36a type three buffer yard between them

1:22:38and all the other a property, which

1:22:41again that's I know one of the speakers

1:22:44mentioned a type four buffer yard. We no

1:22:46longer have that in the UDO since at

1:22:48least the last five or six years, but

1:22:51type three is essentially the new type

1:22:53four. So that would be required. Again,

1:22:56the the way the ordinance is written, it

1:22:58allows you to choose from different

1:23:00widths depending uh obviously if you

1:23:03choose the 20 foot, which is the minimum

1:23:04width, you're going to have your

1:23:06plantings closer together. If you choose

1:23:08I can't remember if 40 or 100 is our

1:23:10maximum for a type three, you can space

1:23:12the plantings more.

1:23:14>> And just to call attention, there is a

1:23:16there is a condition of approval in your

1:23:19in the packet in case you were to

1:23:21recommend approval and in case the

1:23:23commissioners were to approve it. that

1:23:25also requires a type three buffer along

1:23:27Creme Road. Keep in mind a public

1:23:29rideway in and of itself does not

1:23:30require a buffer and the there is no

1:23:34parking within 100 ft of Creme Road. So,

1:23:37it wouldn't require a street yard. So,

1:23:39we already have we have a condition of

1:23:41of approval for a type three buffer yard

1:23:43along Creme. As Kirk was alluding to,

1:23:47when if this were to get approved and

1:23:49they came in to get permits, the buffer

1:23:52yards along the north,

1:23:54west, and southern lines would be

1:23:56covered at permitting.

1:24:02So, forgive my ignorance, but with these

1:24:06types of A exemptions that are being

1:24:08referenced with the sort of heavy

1:24:10equipment, the dust, the vibrations, are

1:24:12they or would they typically be in a lot

1:24:15like this on this type of road, like

1:24:16where do those exemptions with that

1:24:18level of agricultural activity typically

1:24:21occur?

1:24:22>> I mean,

1:24:22>> all of a

1:24:23>> from a is it scale? Is it size? Well,

1:24:27it's it's it's clearly uh the statute

1:24:30actually has a lot of language that we

1:24:32use in interpreting if something meets

1:24:34the farm exemption. And you know,

1:24:38anything that's a bonafide farm can take

1:24:41advantage of that exemption. So, you can

1:24:43have a small operation as long as you

1:24:46meet there's there's four specific

1:24:48criteria in the statute of things you

1:24:50can do. And it's it's something that we

1:24:52kind of look at people's tax returns as

1:24:54probably the easiest way to determine if

1:24:56someone is a bonafide farm that they're

1:24:57receiving taxable farm income. But you

1:25:01could have, you know, a fairly small

1:25:03property and you could have this closer

1:25:06to the street than it currently is on a

1:25:08bonafide farm and that would be

1:25:09perfectly legal. But again, the statute

1:25:13that Chris was referencing, it has some

1:25:15very specific criteria that we're

1:25:17evaluating with and general contracting

1:25:20is not one of those kind of value ad

1:25:23businesses that and other uses different

1:25:26machinery than combines and harvesters

1:25:29and some of the other things that you

1:25:30would see stored in a building like this

1:25:32if it was genuine agriculture

1:25:35>> to to just not to really to go a

1:25:38different tack from Kirk's answer.

1:25:39That's certainly correct, but I mean I

1:25:41Honestly,

1:25:42the area between Walkertown

1:25:46and

1:25:48the corner of Northeast for Scythe

1:25:51County on both sides of Reedville Road

1:25:55is

1:25:58you can't throw a rock and not hit a and

1:26:00not basically and not hit a farm. I

1:26:02mean, there are a lot of farms that

1:26:03qualify for a exemption. I mean, I would

1:26:05say several hundred up in this area. Uh,

1:26:09and you know, thousands of acres of

1:26:11farmland up in this area that has

1:26:15farm use, farm exemption, farm equipment

1:26:19that are used on a daily basis in this

1:26:21area. Yep.

1:26:24>> And that's my challenge is that the you

1:26:25know a is an industri it doesn't have to

1:26:28be but a can certainly be a very heavy

1:26:30industrial type of you know operation

1:26:33and it's allowed um there you know we're

1:26:36we're the problem that I have with it is

1:26:40>> but the intent is to be industrial

1:26:42relative to

1:26:44>> farming.

1:26:45>> Farming.

1:26:45>> Yes.

1:26:46>> So that's the difference.

1:26:47>> Yeah. Farming should be the principal

1:26:48activity and there's and that is the

1:26:50difference. It's a sticky I mean again

1:26:52I'm not going to sit here and pretend

1:26:54you know it's a difficult it's a

1:26:56difficult

1:26:57>> problem to solve. I mean again there are

1:27:00there are many sides

1:27:01>> right

1:27:02>> I don't want to say to the coin to the

1:27:03dice I mean you know that there are you

1:27:05know if this were solely agricultural

1:27:09and it was causing the same impacts

1:27:12there's not anything

1:27:14>> you could do we wouldn't be here because

1:27:16it would be it would fall under the a

1:27:18exemption. We're here because again the

1:27:20you know the folks were honest and said

1:27:22you know we're operating this you know

1:27:23we you again you know it it's

1:27:26>> and this is the solution is to ask for

1:27:28the reasonzoning if if the reasoning

1:27:30ultimately is denied the solution will

1:27:32be they'll have to utilize this for

1:27:34purposes either allowed in the district

1:27:36or as an a exemption and do the

1:27:39um general contractor heavy use

1:27:42somewhere else.

1:27:44>> I'm going to get on my soap box for a

1:27:45minute. So, um I'm I mean I'm from this

1:27:48part of South County. Um and and the as

1:27:52kind of has been alluded to that the

1:27:54real conundrum for me here is you've got

1:27:59a farm use and a

1:28:03similar intensity to farm use with a lot

1:28:05of the same things that look and sound

1:28:07and

1:28:08make the same mess that farm uses do.

1:28:12and we're concerned about housing in

1:28:14this county and we heard how uh AI and

1:28:19and data centers are a a national

1:28:21security issue, but I'm going to tell

1:28:23you agriculture is a is a national

1:28:26security entries issue in this country.

1:28:28Um I saw something on the news the other

1:28:30day, something like 80% of um beef

1:28:33cattle operations have been lost in the

1:28:36last 90 years in the United States. And

1:28:38we keep having to try to find places to

1:28:41house people. You still got to feed

1:28:43people, too. And you can't do that

1:28:44without farmers. And I hear one farmer

1:28:49saying, "This is messing up my farming

1:28:51by this other guy that's saying, "I want

1:28:53to keep farming, but I got to pay the

1:28:56bills." And and that's a common refrain

1:28:59in the agricultural community. I I can

1:29:01remember growing up hearing people, you

1:29:03know, for a tobacco farmer in for Scythe

1:29:05County to have to go to what they used

1:29:06to call public work,

1:29:08>> meaning he had to go work for somebody

1:29:10else because he couldn't afford to feed

1:29:13his family farm. And that was that was

1:29:15like one of the most embarrassing things

1:29:16you could you think of years ago, not so

1:29:20much now. Um, but that's what I'm

1:29:23struggling with here. Somebody that

1:29:24wants to keep farming but can't pay the

1:29:26bills. somebody else that's saying he's

1:29:28messing up my farming operation and a

1:29:31bunch of people saying we want to live

1:29:32where there are farms which good for

1:29:34them. I wish more people felt that way.

1:29:37Um

1:29:38so this this is a tough one for me. I I

1:29:41looked in the UDA this afternoon to try

1:29:42to find the part about being a good

1:29:44neighbor

1:29:46and that section is not in there. um

1:29:49reading between the lines. I think

1:29:51there's some issues with and I don't

1:29:54know where the blame falls probably on

1:29:56both sides of the property line, but

1:29:58there's probably some issues with folks

1:29:59being good neighbors. We can't solve

1:30:01that as a as a planning board. Um, I am

1:30:05concerned about this idea that if you do

1:30:08this here,

1:30:10pardon the pun, the cow's out of the

1:30:11barn and next time, well, we did it last

1:30:15time. And we just have so little

1:30:18agricultural land left in Pyth

1:30:25the

1:30:28thing that tips the scales one way or

1:30:29the other. So,

1:30:31>> but the problem with I understand. I

1:30:35grew up on a farm.

1:30:38So, but I understand. But if we we don't

1:30:41have a lot of good alternatives, I think

1:30:43to work with this because once it's

1:30:46reszoned, then farmer or not, anybody

1:30:49can come in and do that on that property

1:30:52and it can be totally separate from

1:30:54farming

1:30:55>> since there's no I don't know how you

1:30:58make that connection permanent. can

1:31:03>> and that's my sticking point

1:31:05>> with it.

1:31:07>> We we face that with all other kinds of

1:31:09reasonzonings of once we do it, it's for

1:31:11anybody that owns it can has this right

1:31:14with it.

1:31:14>> I I agree. I think it's the setting of

1:31:16the the president and although there

1:31:18were well intentions made and sort of

1:31:20promises made tonight from Mr. Crim, we

1:31:22can't you can't rely on that long term

1:31:25um once that door has been has been

1:31:28opened. Um, so that's my concern as

1:31:31well.

1:31:32>> From a procedural perspective, I think I

1:31:35have understood the staff explaining

1:31:40that

1:31:42with this request being a an an L

1:31:46request that there's a significant

1:31:50difference in that and a special use

1:31:53request.

1:31:55I'm not so sure we're asking for the

1:31:59right tool to paint this pig pink with.

1:32:04Um, and uh, and I will admit to not

1:32:08knowing. Um, if there's another way to

1:32:13address the issue other than Lzoning,

1:32:18uh, I hope we could take the time to

1:32:21discover that and see if it works. If

1:32:25not, I cannot support the request as

1:32:28proposed.

1:32:30>> And and I don't want to speak for the

1:32:32petitioner. I I mean, Rory might be able

1:32:35to speak or Brian or Mark. I I know that

1:32:37one of the things that we did talk

1:32:39about, and again, was the difference

1:32:42between L and S.

1:32:44>> I believe the determinant with the

1:32:45petitioner, the petitioner wanted to

1:32:47know if we would re I mean, again, I

1:32:49think this was the context. The

1:32:50petitioner wanted to know if we would

1:32:52recommend approval with an S. Um, and

1:32:57you know, it it it still from a land use

1:33:01perspective, uh, would not sway us and I

1:33:05don't think that they wanted to pay, you

1:33:08know, obviously an L is your application

1:33:10fee, an S is survey,

1:33:14>> site plan,

1:33:14>> site plan, etc. So again, it's it's an

1:33:18expensive endeavor without any uh

1:33:21asurances of approval. And what you

1:33:23know, again, I'm not obviously it's

1:33:25within the board's right to do what the

1:33:27board would like to do, but what I would

1:33:28hate to do is send someone away to bring

1:33:32back a site plan and have that

1:33:35expenditure and end up with the same

1:33:37recommendation that you would have

1:33:38gotten with an L. So, I mean, again,

1:33:40unless there would be some type of an

1:33:42assurance that the planning board would

1:33:44be, you know, again, I'm not trying to

1:33:46put words into your mouth and I'm not

1:33:47trying to paint you into a corner, but

1:33:49just knowing from uh, you know, from how

1:33:52costly a site plan is, it's not going to

1:33:54impact staff's recommendation. If it's

1:33:56not going to impact ultimately the

1:33:58planning board's recommendation, it

1:34:00would probably be better to send it

1:34:01forward with an up or down vote based on

1:34:04the petition as submitted. But obviously

1:34:06that's also a question for the applicant

1:34:08and not just me. But that's I wanted to

1:34:10provide a little bit of that context.

1:34:12>> I think the biggest advantage to the

1:34:13petitioner would be if if done correctly

1:34:16the hope that some of the opposition

1:34:19that we've heard today might be assuaged

1:34:23by a good site plan that had some

1:34:26protections for the things that rightly

1:34:30concern them. But if you don't have

1:34:32that, if you if if if your neighbors are

1:34:34saying, "Look, we don't care. You can

1:34:36bring us the most perfect sight plan.

1:34:38You can put it all underground and we're

1:34:40still not going to like it." Then you're

1:34:42right. You're just wasting your time and

1:34:44your money.

1:34:47>> I would add it. I was surprised at the

1:34:50amount of commercial around this area.

1:34:52It doesn't You don't have to look too

1:34:54far to see a I'm just going to rattle it

1:34:56off. Post Office, Boat Storage,

1:34:59Automotive, Dollar General, of course,

1:35:02Dogwood Farms. I'm not sure how traffic

1:35:04that is throughout the year, but

1:35:06certainly in growing seasons, pet barn,

1:35:08fire department.

1:35:10I mean, it it is along a fairly

1:35:12commercial, fairly not intense, but

1:35:16Blues Creek is is pretty big road. And

1:35:19not to mention the power station,

1:35:23the Duke Energy Station just north of

1:35:25it.

1:35:30And I don't I don't think we can change

1:35:32the market as much as we may want more

1:35:36agg. We can try to make what's presented

1:35:39better though as a different way of

1:35:41looking at it.

1:35:48Any other c thoughts, comments,

1:35:51questions?

1:35:55Is there a motion?

1:35:57>> I move that the planning board find that

1:35:59the request is inconsistent with the

1:36:01comprehensive plan.

1:36:02>> Second.

1:36:03>> Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr. Tino.

1:36:05Any discussion?

1:36:07>> All in favor sign. I

1:36:09>> I

1:36:09>> I. [clears throat]

1:36:10>> Any opposed? So on consistency, that's

1:36:13unanimous.

1:36:15>> Um I move that the planning board

1:36:17recommend denial of F1672.

1:36:20>> Second. Motion by Mr. Fabby. Second by

1:36:23Mr. Patino. Any further discussion?

1:36:26All in favor sign of I.

1:36:28>> I.

1:36:29>> Any opposed?

1:36:31All right. So that's 72. Is that right?

1:36:341 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Yep. 7 to two.

1:36:37>> Correct.

1:36:38>> That's what I had.

1:36:38>> So this will go on to the county

1:36:40commissioners for their consideration at

1:36:42one of their future meetings. Um, if you

1:36:46um are concerned about making sure you

1:36:49you know when that is um you can check

1:36:51with planning staff or got a notice for

1:36:53this. I think you'll get a notice for

1:36:55the commissioners maybe.

1:36:56>> Yeah, you should get a notice from the

1:36:57board of county commissioners uh because

1:37:00you

1:37:02spoke and because you probably already

1:37:04got a notification as a property owner

1:37:06within 500 feet. So,

1:37:10>> thank you all for taking the time to be

1:37:12here. If you have any questions, reach

1:37:13out to our staff. Reach out to Rory. He

1:37:15can tell you what the date will be.

1:37:16It'll be sometime in September, I

1:37:17imagine.

1:37:19>> All right. Thank you all again. We're

1:37:21going to take just a brief moment and

1:37:23let anybody would like to step out. Go

1:37:26ahead and do that before we move to our

1:37:27next item.

1:37:32>> There's always something interesting in

1:37:33the county.

1:37:37>> Apparently got a lot of

1:37:41>> sunshine.

1:37:44should have just not admitted somebody

1:37:51regardless of this always stays with

1:37:54her.

1:37:55Yeah, it is. He should have just bought

1:37:57it because he's got 125 acres of

1:38:00soybeans.

1:38:03>> I mean, you're

1:38:06serious,

1:38:07>> right? It is every bit as intensive.

1:38:12Heard about

1:38:14>> Okay, so we'll get back on our agenda

1:38:18now and

1:38:18>> the county commissioner.

1:38:20>> We'll hear from Tiffany White who will

1:38:21present UDOCC 37.

1:38:26>> [clears throat]

1:38:27>> Good evening everyone. I am here to

1:38:31present UDO CC37 which is a petition

1:38:35from planning and development services

1:38:37staff to modify chapter 5 of the UDO to

1:38:40remove bufferyard requirements for

1:38:42planned residential developments with

1:38:44perimeter lots that do not meet the

1:38:46minimum dimensional requirements of the

1:38:48underlying zoning district.

1:38:52So, some background. Um, last December,

1:38:55city council's community development,

1:38:57housing, and general government

1:38:58committee um asked the planning staff to

1:39:01investigate removing or reducing

1:39:03perimeter buffer yard and thoroughfare

1:39:05open space requirements for PRDS.

1:39:08So, our staff looked at um what exists

1:39:12and some options. Currently, a 20ft type

1:39:151 buffer yard is required around the

1:39:17entire perimeter of any PRD where

1:39:20perimeter lots do not meet the minimum

1:39:22dimensional requirements of the

1:39:24underlying zoning district in which the

1:39:26PRD is located. Um, one caveat to that

1:39:29is that PRDs that abut other PRDs are

1:39:32exempt from that. In addition, the

1:39:34thoroughfare open space um requirements

1:39:37are a 50 or 100 foot type 3 buffer yard

1:39:40within GMAS 3, four and five where PRDs

1:39:44abut major or minor thoroughares. So

1:39:46that's what's currently in the UDO.

1:39:50UDO regulations concerning PRD perimeter

1:39:53buffer yards have kind of varied over

1:39:55time. The requirement for them dates

1:39:57back to when the UDO came to be in 1994.

1:40:01It was briefly removed in 2005 and then

1:40:04reinstated in 2008 and there were some

1:40:07additional requirements that were made

1:40:08in 2020. As for the thoroughfare open

1:40:11space, the requirements for that were

1:40:13introduced in 2008 and have remained

1:40:14unchanged since that time.

1:40:18Some analysis, most the PRDS that we

1:40:20have seen um have been developed as

1:40:22single family residential subdivisions

1:40:25and are considered low inensity land

1:40:27uses. Um, conventional residential

1:40:30subdivisions as opposed to PRDS are not

1:40:32required to provide buffer yards even in

1:40:35situations where adjacent lot sizes are

1:40:37very different. For example, if there

1:40:39was an RS9 development right

1:40:41[clears throat] next to an RS40

1:40:42development, those conventional

1:40:43subdivisions would not have a

1:40:45requirement for a buffer yard. [snorts]

1:40:47PRDS um are often developed adjacent to

1:40:50other residentially zoned lots similar

1:40:52to conventional subdivisions. Um, and it

1:40:56should be noted that PRDS with

1:40:57multifamily units in RM districts are

1:41:00required to have those buffer yards when

1:41:02adjacent to other zoning districts in

1:41:04another UDO section. So, that is not

1:41:07being changed um in this proposed text

1:41:11amendment. Those would remain in place.

1:41:15staff believes that removing the PRD

1:41:17buffer requirements will lead to some

1:41:19more efficient development patterns

1:41:21while not being detrimental to those

1:41:23surrounding areas. Um, this amendment

1:41:26does not prohibit the installation of

1:41:28buffer yards if a developer would want

1:41:30to do that. It merely removes the

1:41:32requirement in the UDO.

1:41:35Um staff believes that the thoroughfare

1:41:37open space however uh those requirements

1:41:39for PRDS in GMAS 3 through5 should be

1:41:43retained as they foster attractive

1:41:45streetscapes and reduce the impacts of

1:41:47the hightraic roads on those adjacent

1:41:49lots. This amendment would also support

1:41:52the goal of forward 2045 to reduce

1:41:54barriers to housing uh and increase

1:41:57housing supply.

1:42:00And with that staff recommends approval.

1:42:02Any questions? questions for staff.

1:42:07>> I do just want to add just one

1:42:11emphasis

1:42:14from what Tiffany from from the

1:42:16presentation.

1:42:18If you have one lot in the PRD that

1:42:22doesn't meet the minimum requirement,

1:42:25the the minimum lot size for the

1:42:28district that you're going in, you have

1:42:29to provide the buffer yard for the

1:42:31entire project. It's not just along the

1:42:33line that where that lot doesn't meet

1:42:35it. You have to provide the whole thing.

1:42:38And again, I'm saying that a little bit

1:42:40tongue and cheek. I don't, you know,

1:42:41it's rare you're going to see a PRD

1:42:43that's only going to have one lot that

1:42:45is less than that size. But again,

1:42:47that's the that's the penalty for having

1:42:50anything less than is you have to do

1:42:52this. And from a public policy

1:42:55standpoint, you know, we had this debate

1:42:5920 years ago when we took it out. Why

1:43:01from a public policy standpoint are we

1:43:03buffering

1:43:05like uses from like uses based on a

1:43:08based on a lot size? Uh so again from a

1:43:12public policy standpoint we feel like

1:43:13this is you it makes perfect sense there

1:43:16are other safeguards in place. uh if

1:43:19there are uh PRD uses in the PRD that

1:43:22are not single family but in this

1:43:24context when you're doing generally

1:43:26speaking the PRDs that you saw today all

1:43:29of them had lot sizes smaller than the

1:43:32underlying zoning district and that thus

1:43:33at this point had to provide a buffer

1:43:35yard they'll be able to change that

1:43:37probably before they get built if this

1:43:38gets adopted but again just a little

1:43:41additional context

1:43:44>> all right no one signed up to speak in

1:43:46opposition to this recommendation Was

1:43:48anyone here opposed to this item?

1:43:52Seeing no one, I'll declare the public

1:43:54hearing closed. What's the pleasure of

1:43:55the board?

1:43:56>> Move that the planning board find that

1:43:58the request is consistent with the

1:44:00comprehensive plan.

1:44:01>> Second motion by Mr. FY, second by Mr.

1:44:03Pino. Any discussion?

1:44:05>> I just want to reiterate how important

1:44:08this is for development. And I I think

1:44:11it it's also important to note that it

1:44:14may encourage folks to do PRDS more

1:44:16often, which kicks in the open space

1:44:19requirements, which

1:44:21I'm 100% for, particularly when they're

1:44:25done in a in a good manner. So this one

1:44:28is this is very

1:44:31>> smart

1:44:31>> smart big whatever you want to say it's

1:44:33a pretty great step for us to take

1:44:36>> and and to expand to go from that it is

1:44:41a I agree it's a really good step to

1:44:43take. I was also uh somewhat impressed

1:44:46with the letter from the Winston Salem

1:44:49Regional Association of Realtors

1:44:52uh government affairs director and their

1:44:55collective suggestions

1:44:58of additional

1:45:01uh things that might be tweaked in the

1:45:02future and just hope that that they can

1:45:06remain on on someone's plate to look at

1:45:09and bring further improvements in if

1:45:12possible.

1:45:13>> Yeah. You know, and keep in mind that

1:45:14being an outside request, there are

1:45:15certainly lots of other things that our

1:45:17staff are working on to move the needle

1:45:20as far as housing affordability and

1:45:22additional units and those kind of

1:45:24things. But we did not want to co-mingle

1:45:30the two because we feel like this is a

1:45:34easier lift than

1:45:37uh allowing attached product in PRDS and

1:45:40some of the other things that we're

1:45:41going to bring to be bringing forward

1:45:43and we didn't want you know this to you

1:45:45know prover you know to to perhaps get

1:45:48voted down whenever it could stand on

1:45:50its own. So we're certainly going to be

1:45:51bringing those other things.

1:45:53>> Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate the

1:45:54spoiler alert,

1:45:57but one thing also to add is this is not

1:45:59also just for developers, but it

1:46:01significantly reduces the cost on the

1:46:03burden of the HOA.

1:46:05>> So, I don't want that to get lost that

1:46:07this is all for

1:46:08>> developers.

1:46:11Good. Good all around. All right. Any

1:46:13further discussion?

1:46:15There's a motion and second on the

1:46:17table. All in favor sign of I.

1:46:19>> I.

1:46:19>> Any opposed?

1:46:21>> That's unanimous. I move that the

1:46:23planning board recommend approval of UDO

1:46:26CC37.

1:46:27>> Second.

1:46:28>> Motion by Mr. FBY, second by Mr. Pinho.

1:46:30Any discussion?

1:46:31>> All in favor sign of I.

1:46:33>> I.

1:46:33>> I.

1:46:34>> Any opposed?

1:46:38>> Mr. Chairman of board. We'll now hear

1:46:39from Matthew Burchick who will uh do the

1:46:41public hearing presentation by staff on

1:46:43the northeast suburban area plan.

1:46:58getting old.

1:47:01>> Thank you, Chris, and good evening,

1:47:03board members. Um, the item before you

1:47:05is uh consideration of that northeast

1:47:08suburban area plan. So I want to take

1:47:10some time this evening just to discuss

1:47:12the area plan the process we've gone

1:47:14through in developing the plan and uh

1:47:16share with you the final product as

1:47:18well. So we started on this plan back at

1:47:21the end of 2025

1:47:23and um

1:47:26have gone through this process really

1:47:29this this latest round of area plans and

1:47:32the northeast suburban area plan is the

1:47:34first iteration in this latest round. Uh

1:47:36the latest round is in support of the

1:47:39forward 2045 comprehensive plan. So what

1:47:42we're trying to do is implement that

1:47:44vision that was developed through the

1:47:46forward 2045 plan. Um and we'll go

1:47:48through the the entire series of 18 area

1:47:51plans um through this process. But this

1:47:54was the first the northeast suburban

1:47:55area plan was the first. And the primary

1:47:58deliverable of these air plans in this

1:48:00new round is a set of parcel specific

1:48:03recommendations. So when all is said and

1:48:05done, we'll have parcel specific

1:48:07recommendations for all about 160,000

1:48:11parcels within forite county. Um, and

1:48:14one thing we, you know, we emphasized

1:48:16with the public as we were going through

1:48:18this process was that,

1:48:20you know, the recommendations that we're

1:48:22making are not mandates. These are

1:48:23recommendations that the board can use,

1:48:26um, that the elected bodies can use when

1:48:28making land use decisions. Um, so that

1:48:30was something we definitely wanted to to

1:48:32highlight with with folks who were

1:48:34involved in the process. Um, and then I

1:48:36have a note there just about this being

1:48:37a unique process and product. There

1:48:38aren't really any other communities that

1:48:40do area planning at this type of parcel

1:48:43specific level. So, you know, we're

1:48:45pleased to give the the public that

1:48:47opportunity to get involved with this

1:48:48process early on so that they can have a

1:48:50say in how the community develops.

1:48:54So, I mentioned those 18 area plans um

1:48:57for for Scythe County. They're

1:48:59highlighted here. Um with the northeast

1:49:02suburban area plan circled there. So

1:49:05moving specifically into the northeast

1:49:07suburban area. It includes parts of

1:49:09Winston Salem and unincorporated for

1:49:11Scythe County. It's a wide variety of

1:49:13development types. You can see the the

1:49:15southern end of this area plan of the

1:49:17the zone almost reaches uh Smith and

1:49:20Reynolds Airport and the northern end

1:49:22extends all the way to the Stokes County

1:49:24line. About 16,000 residents live here,

1:49:27about 21,000 acres, and about 8,000

1:49:30parcels, each of which again will

1:49:32receive a uh land use recommendation.

1:49:36So, I mentioned that the wide variety of

1:49:39um of uses and development types in the

1:49:42area. This is the growth management area

1:49:44plan overlaid over the the area plan

1:49:47district. Um, you can see GMAs 2, three,

1:49:51four, and five are all covered within

1:49:53this within the northeast suburban area.

1:49:56So, a lot of different interests, a lot

1:49:58of different needs, um, a lot of

1:50:00different development types and, you

1:50:01know, all of those things to consider as

1:50:03we were making these land use

1:50:05recommendations.

1:50:07This map shows the uh, the sewer service

1:50:11area uh, for the count or for the

1:50:13planning area. And those parcels in that

1:50:15tan color represent um areas with

1:50:18existing public sewer service. The areas

1:50:20in white represent those without that

1:50:23service. Um and [clears throat] then you

1:50:26can see that orange line running through

1:50:27there east to west that's the northern

1:50:29beltway and that's this is really the

1:50:31crux of the whole issue of this plan

1:50:33area is the you know the presence of the

1:50:35beltway and the presence or absence of

1:50:38those sewer utilities. So again, we have

1:50:41the growth pressure from the beltway.

1:50:44Um, and then we have the constraints

1:50:48created by the lack of public sewer

1:50:50service in a large part of this area.

1:50:53Um, and that, you know, that's going to

1:50:55be present in all of the land use

1:50:57recommendations we have for this area.

1:50:58Um, definitely a major consideration and

1:51:01really the reason why this northeast

1:51:03suburban area was selected first to be

1:51:05considered through this new round of

1:51:07area plans.

1:51:09So the process we went through, we had

1:51:12four public input meetings. Each of

1:51:14those meetings was accompanied by an

1:51:16online survey as well. Um so we tried to

1:51:19to get to people, reach them where they

1:51:21were, what was convenient for them. Um

1:51:24we started the the public meetings back

1:51:26in February, finished them up in June,

1:51:28and have been working on developing the

1:51:30actual plan document since then.

1:51:34Um, in support of those meetings, you we

1:51:36had to have a lot of advertising. Again,

1:51:38trying to reach people in a number of

1:51:41different ways. Everything from social

1:51:42media and digital ad campaigns to

1:51:45podcast to radio and TV appearances,

1:51:48print media, um, phone calls to

1:51:52individuals um, posting of flyers at

1:51:55local businesses and and whatever we

1:51:57could think of, we were out there trying

1:51:59to promote these meetings.

1:52:02As a result of that outreach, we had

1:52:04about a hundred people participate

1:52:06either in person or through those online

1:52:08surveys that I had mentioned. Um, so you

1:52:11can see the participation numbers for

1:52:14each of those meetings. Um, you pretty

1:52:17good pretty good participation

1:52:18throughout the process.

1:52:21I mentioned that the primary deliverable

1:52:23of these these new area plans is really

1:52:26focused on the land use recommendations.

1:52:28So, um, very much consistent with the

1:52:32existing area plans, the currently

1:52:33adopted plans. You know, that's a

1:52:35product, um, the land use

1:52:37recommendations map is a product that is

1:52:40used, you know, frequently by our staff,

1:52:43by planning board members, by elected

1:52:44officials, and that's really the focus

1:52:46of these new area plans. So, you'll see

1:52:50plenty of maps like these.

1:52:53While the the generally those land use

1:52:57uh recommendation maps are consistent

1:52:59with you know maps that we have done uh

1:53:02with the the current round of area

1:53:03plans. There were a few additions some

1:53:06new features we have added to these area

1:53:08plans this time around. One of those

1:53:11features is something we're called

1:53:12mixeduse areas. So these are sites with

1:53:16multiple parcels that would benefit from

1:53:18some kind of comprehensive design and

1:53:20planning. Um, using this number seven

1:53:23here as a an example. This is mixed use

1:53:26area number seven. You can see there's a

1:53:27number of individual parcels that make

1:53:29up this mixeduse area. Each of those

1:53:31having its own land use recommendation.

1:53:34So, if an owner of one of those parcels

1:53:36wanted to develop it or change the use

1:53:38of it, we would have an individual

1:53:41parcel land use recommendation for for

1:53:43that parcel um and could make a decision

1:53:45on that. However, if somebody were to

1:53:48acquire all of these parcels and wanted

1:53:49to develop this area comprehensively,

1:53:52um there's a recognition that that could

1:53:54be beneficial to this area and it

1:53:56provides a little bit of flexibility to

1:53:58rearrange and expand the uses that um

1:54:00are recommended for these parcels. Um

1:54:03so, just going through quick, you know,

1:54:06briefly through these areas. Um the

1:54:08mixeduse areas we have identified, I

1:54:10mentioned there were seven of those.

1:54:12three of them are kind of clustered

1:54:15around the German road beltway

1:54:17interchange.

1:54:19Um so again, you know, there's some

1:54:21larger uh groups of parcels there that

1:54:24could be developed in a number of

1:54:25different ways. Um one of them is near

1:54:28the intersection of University Parkway

1:54:30and Hannesville Road.

1:54:33Another is near the Box Mountain

1:54:35Northern Beltway interchange.

1:54:38And then there are two um kind of

1:54:40centrally located in the plan area along

1:54:42Old Roll Hall Road.

1:54:46So the other new feature associated with

1:54:49the area plans is something we're

1:54:50calling alternative development option

1:54:52areas. So again, it's a group of parcels

1:54:56each with their own base parcel

1:54:58recommendation.

1:54:59Um but there's some recognition that

1:55:02that base parcel recommendation may not

1:55:04be the only suitable use for that site.

1:55:07Um, and you probably think, well,

1:55:09there's multiple many parcels in the

1:55:11area that could have multiple uses like

1:55:13that. What's special about these is

1:55:15there's something about the location,

1:55:17the size, the current use, something

1:55:19that makes these stand out as,

1:55:22you know, justifying potential uh

1:55:25alternative use. So, what we're trying

1:55:27to do with these is just provide

1:55:29flexibility uh to best meet the needs of

1:55:31the community.

1:55:34>> Quick question for you just as relates

1:55:35to this one.

1:55:37The uh parcel just to the north is

1:55:41labeled a yellow. If someone were to

1:55:43purchase the old Hannes property, how

1:55:46easy is it or hard to include an

1:55:50adjacent parcel

1:55:52>> it to add it to this alternative

1:55:54development option area? I don't know if

1:55:56it would nec it would be necessary to do

1:55:58that. I think you know that parcel there

1:56:01are probably specific conditions for

1:56:04that parcel to the north. Um, I think if

1:56:06it makes sense, there's an opportunity

1:56:08there. But I think what we have done,

1:56:11you know, these parcels that we've

1:56:13identified in this ADO are specific to

1:56:15the Hannes Hannes brand parcel. So

1:56:18that's why we identified it. To me, you

1:56:22know, there's potential for adding

1:56:23something to it, but you know, as as it

1:56:25stands now, this is these are the

1:56:27parcels we thought were appropriate for

1:56:28that location.

1:56:30>> Yeah. And just to answer that

1:56:34again, these parcels are what are

1:56:36already currently part of the campus and

1:56:39you have a base recommendation which I

1:56:41think that is for office. Is that what

1:56:43the pink is?

1:56:44>> Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, office.

1:56:45>> But under the alternative development

1:56:47options, it may say, you know, you can

1:56:48bring this in as a comprehensive, you

1:56:50know, mixeduse project with multif

1:56:51family and commercial, etc., etc. Well,

1:56:54again, if

1:56:57you have this piece that you're talking

1:56:58about to the northwest, well, I mean,

1:57:00again, part of a mixeduse project, you

1:57:01could have single family. So, they could

1:57:03easily incorporate that into there as a

1:57:04single family. Or again, if they wanted

1:57:06to add that and have it as a more

1:57:09intense use,

1:57:11you know, 85% of it would be compliant.

1:57:14We would just have to judge that 15%.

1:57:16So, again, it's just like any area plan.

1:57:18And it's one of the criticisms that you

1:57:19know we've heard over the course of time

1:57:21is you know that you know you're setting

1:57:24this in stone and you're not flexible. I

1:57:26mean we always folks can ask whatever

1:57:28they want. We have to analyze it based

1:57:30on the plan of record that we have you

1:57:33know if it's adopted but you know

1:57:35certainly

1:57:37if someone were to bring all this in as

1:57:39a mixeduse project and wanted to bring

1:57:40that northeast uh sorry northwest piece

1:57:44in as part of it they certainly could.

1:57:49Okay. Um so continuing, you know, just

1:57:53to give you an overview of these lo

1:57:55these ADO areas. Um again,

1:57:58coincidentally, there were seven of

1:57:59them. Um ADO number one way on the

1:58:03western edge of uh the northeast

1:58:05suburban area west of University

1:58:07Parkway.

1:58:09Um we've talked about the Hannes Brands

1:58:11headquarters. Uh, Maple Chase Golf

1:58:13Course was another ADO identified.

1:58:17Um, number four is uh the Box Mountain

1:58:20Road uh northern Beltway interchange

1:58:23location.

1:58:26Um, five and six, two locations off of

1:58:30Oak Summit Road.

1:58:32And then number seven was a set of

1:58:34parcels within the Agburn Agburn Station

1:58:37Activity Center.

1:58:40So with that, I'm happy to answer any

1:58:41questions you might have about the

1:58:42process or the end product

1:58:45for the northeast suburban area.

1:58:47>> Just a question um like say the Maple

1:58:50Chase um special

1:58:54parcel. Um now this is the new iteration

1:58:57of um area plans. Would it be common

1:59:02practice to identify say golf courses or

1:59:06large parcels

1:59:09with recommendations

1:59:11in future area plans or was there a

1:59:14specific reason for say including Maple

1:59:18Chase?

1:59:19>> Maplechase wasn't singled out as

1:59:21different than we would for similar

1:59:23uses. This is something that just kind

1:59:25of seeing what we've had in the

1:59:28community in the, you know, 20 25 years

1:59:32that some of us have been here, you see

1:59:34that we've lost uh three or four. for I

1:59:36think Chris's count is four golf courses

1:59:39that have turned into residential

1:59:40subdivisions. So

1:59:42>> again, and I know we've done that in

1:59:44some of the later uh area plans in the

1:59:46last round, but just trying to be more

1:59:48consistent in that.

1:59:49>> Okay.

1:59:52>> Um

1:59:54for those of you that don't know some of

1:59:57my background, I'm very economic

1:59:59development oriented. And with that full

2:00:03disclosure,

2:00:0521,000 acres, generally speaking, in

2:00:08this area,

2:00:10of which a couple of years ago, the the

2:00:13county and its consultants

2:00:16identified possible future economic

2:00:18development areas,

2:00:20of which there is a cluster of parcels

2:00:23comprising about 640 acres

2:00:27in this northeast area.

2:00:30Um,

2:00:32and we all know that it's going to be

2:00:35very expensive to make it viable because

2:00:39there's no sewer.

2:00:42We all know money solves that. Um, I

2:00:48would like some input on the possibility

2:00:52of mentioning this significant economic

2:00:56development opportunity

2:00:59subject to the provision of utilities.

2:01:02So, we continue to plant and grow those

2:01:06seeds rather than not bringing it up at

2:01:09all in this plan.

2:01:11Um 640 acres is a lot of acres, but it's

2:01:16less than

2:01:18um less than 3/10 of 1% of the total

2:01:23area, but it can have a much greater

2:01:25impact

2:01:27from my opinion.

2:01:31>> What I can say is one of the things that

2:01:33we included into the plan was statement.

2:01:36And it's a simple statement, but if the

2:01:39sewer services were to come to any of

2:01:41these areas where they currently don't

2:01:44exist, that we would reconsider parcel

2:01:47specific land use recommendations at

2:01:49that point. So,

2:01:50>> and I appreciate that. I just know the

2:01:53people that come after us that are going

2:01:56to be trying to get the money for those

2:01:57sewage extensions need all the support

2:02:01they can get rather than saying, "H, if

2:02:03something changes, we might be there for

2:02:05you. I would like something more

2:02:08specific. But if it's not within uh the

2:02:12intent of your area plans,

2:02:16then that yeah, then that's that, too.

2:02:20But if it wouldn't hurt anything, I

2:02:22would recommend it. I would request it.

2:02:28>> Well, I I commend um the planning

2:02:30department for this effort. So, thank

2:02:31you so much and I appreciate the

2:02:34alternative suggestions as a means to

2:02:36create more flexibility to meet the

2:02:39evolving needs of the community. So,

2:02:41thank you.

2:02:43>> Yeah, the the ADO concept is fantastic.

2:02:46I'm looking forward to seeing that

2:02:48>> um actually bear fruit in the future.

2:02:52>> Any other discussion?

2:02:54>> Just kudos for utilizing different tools

2:02:58to reach the community. I mean, the

2:03:01podcast, the social media, it's just

2:03:04thinking in a more current way because

2:03:08we need the input, but we don't get get

2:03:11it the same ways we did the last

2:03:14iteration of area plans. So,

2:03:16>> yeah, congrats.

2:03:17>> Walter wants to be on a podcast is what

2:03:19I'm [laughter]

2:03:21>> Yeah, I'll [clears throat]

2:03:22I'll jump in

2:03:23>> volunteering.

2:03:24>> I'll jump in the chair for

2:03:25>> or origami with Walter. [laughter]

2:03:29>> All right. Any other discussion? Is

2:03:31there a motion

2:03:33>> that we got to do the public hearing?

2:03:34>> Don't we need it public?

2:03:36>> Technically,

2:03:37>> we usually have uh public hearings on

2:03:39this.

2:03:39>> We just need to ask if anyone's here.

2:03:40>> Oh, yeah. Sorry. I was All right. Is

2:03:43anybody here would like to speak in

2:03:46support or opposition to this proposal?

2:03:49>> Seeing no one, I'll declare the public

2:03:51hearing closed. Now, is there a motion?

2:03:53I move that the planning board recommend

2:03:55approval of the north northeast suburban

2:03:58area plan.

2:03:59>> A second motion by Mr. Fairby second by

2:04:01Mr. Peto. Any further discussion?

2:04:04>> Uh would anyone consider the inclusion

2:04:06of of my request?

2:04:13>> Make a specific

2:04:14>> Well, I mean again I will defer I would

2:04:17defer. You know, I think there is enough

2:04:18built-in flexibility in the plan to

2:04:20allow that. Again, one of the things is

2:04:22the horizon year on this. I mean, we got

2:04:25we got $20 million. We being forcy

2:04:28county to do this the Wahberg road lift

2:04:30station and we're three and a half years

2:04:32into it and we're about at 30% of the

2:04:35design build. So before that gets, you

2:04:37know, we're probably two and a half to

2:04:39three more years before that gets built.

2:04:41I have a feeling we might be on the next

2:04:43round of area plans before if you know

2:04:45if Forces County were to secure that

2:04:47money.

2:04:49You know what we don't want to do is to

2:04:51go up and put a lift station just over

2:04:54the ridge line. So again, it's going to

2:04:57be a fairly expensive project. I don't

2:04:59necessarily know that it's going to come

2:05:01to fruition within the horizon year of

2:05:03where this plan is. What I would say is,

2:05:07I mean, again, let's just say, you know,

2:05:09the fairy godmother or father bestowed

2:05:11$100 million and that's what it would

2:05:13take to get it done. there's enough

2:05:14flexibility in the plan that if sewer

2:05:18were were available, we could, you know,

2:05:20we could accommodate that. I think the

2:05:22our reluctance to provide

2:05:25recommendations for industrialization

2:05:28without sewer

2:05:30didn't make any sense either. You know,

2:05:32we don't want to have it on the map and

2:05:34say this is an area for industry

2:05:38and there's no hope of getting sewer

2:05:40there for, you know, 30 years. So again,

2:05:43I think there's flex enough flexibility

2:05:45in the plan without having to change the

2:05:47plan.

2:05:48>> Do we have any

2:05:48>> I'll defer to the planning board.

2:05:50>> Do we have any mechanism or is there any

2:05:53limitation on redoing an area plan at a

2:05:58later date without a new kind plan?

2:06:01>> No, I mean we're going to redo this

2:06:03plan.

2:06:04>> Yeah. I mean basically because you know

2:06:06the the first round of area plans took

2:06:09us a long time because it was laying the

2:06:12initial groundwork. So by the time we

2:06:16got finished with the last plan it was

2:06:20probably 14 or 15 years approximately

2:06:24from the time we began the first area

2:06:26plan. And that might be a little long,

2:06:28but you know, again, we were we already

2:06:31had conj changes in

2:06:34the community that led us to do a comp

2:06:37plan update and then we did the next

2:06:40round of area plans as an area plan

2:06:42update. Our hope would be that, you

2:06:44know, maybe we could do two rounds of

2:06:46area plans before we do the next comp

2:06:48plan. So there's certainly not anything

2:06:50that would be set in stone that would

2:06:52say we'd have to do another comp plan

2:06:54before we before we revisit that.

2:06:56>> I feel like you you would wind up with a

2:06:57better product than trying I mean Jack I

2:07:00your your point is a valid one but I

2:07:03think rather than try to do it

2:07:05prospectively now I would rather see us

2:07:08say hey things have changed we're even

2:07:10going to put this last one of this

2:07:12iteration on hold to do this one again

2:07:15to get it right. To me, that makes more

2:07:18sense. But

2:07:19>> and I'm not gonna hold anybody up on

2:07:21this. I'll just say the other side of

2:07:24the reality is when local elected and uh

2:07:28local elected officials and

2:07:30professionals go to Raleigh to try to

2:07:32request the money for these kinds of

2:07:35projects, they need all the banking and

2:07:38support they can get

2:07:39>> because the question is going to be what

2:07:40are you going to do with it?

2:07:42>> Um is why are you asking? And the answer

2:07:46is it's in our plans. It's in the

2:07:48consultant studies.

2:07:50>> Yeah.

2:07:50>> We studied this.

2:07:51>> Yeah.

2:07:52>> And and we really do have I mean the

2:07:54beltway in and of itself with nothing

2:07:57else being necessary should be enough.

2:08:01They should place enough pressure on

2:08:04utilities commission to want to

2:08:07maximize the return on investment there.

2:08:09>> Yeah. and and and you know, keeping keep

2:08:11in mind it's a multi-pronged approach.

2:08:13As part of forward 2045, we have a

2:08:17growth management plan that we actually

2:08:20changed part of the area up here from

2:08:23GMA 5

2:08:25>> rural to GMA4 future growth for sewer

2:08:30expansion. So, we have that in the plan.

2:08:32We have some recommendations in here

2:08:34that again there's some flexibility

2:08:36built into this that would allow us if

2:08:39sewer became available to revisit some

2:08:41things. We have, you know, for Scythe

2:08:44County worked with HDR and there is a

2:08:49sewer basin study where they identified

2:08:52a number of large parcels, but believe

2:08:54it or not, this area didn't qualify

2:08:58because there weren't there weren't

2:09:00enough large parcels. you would have to

2:09:01do assemblage, but again, we have tools

2:09:04in the toolbox that will allow us to get

2:09:06there should we get the money to do it.

2:09:11>> All right, motion and second on the

2:09:14floor. Any further discussion before we

2:09:16vote?

2:09:18>> All in favor sign of I.

2:09:20>> I.

2:09:20>> Any opposed? That's unanimous.

2:09:24>> Mr. Chairman of board, the last item

2:09:26we'll hear today uh as far as on your

2:09:28agenda is B1. disposition of parkland

2:09:31and we'll hear from deputy director Kirk

2:09:32Ericson and I apologize in advance. I

2:09:35keep promising you we're not going to

2:09:36bring you any more of these and every

2:09:38time I turn around we're bringing

2:09:39another one but I I'll let Kirk talk

2:09:41about that.

2:09:42>> All right. I guess I should say at this

2:09:44point good evening uh Mr. Chairman and

2:09:46commissioners but I'll try to make this

2:09:47brief. Uh this as Chris mentioned again

2:09:51this is the I think this I think we

2:09:53calculated this is about the fourth one

2:09:55of these you've seen in the last uh 12

2:09:57months and the petitioner in this case

2:10:00is the Prosperity Alliance and the

2:10:02request is to purchase undeveloped land

2:10:04designated as West Clemensville Road

2:10:07Park from the city.

2:10:09Just as a little bit of background,

2:10:11again, you've heard this before, but in

2:10:132001, city council adopted a resolution

2:10:16requiring the planning board and city

2:10:18council to both hold public hearings

2:10:20prior to the sale or transfer of any

2:10:22city-owned park property. In 1958, the

2:10:26city acquired this 4.9 acre piece of

2:10:29property near West Clemensville Road and

2:10:31South Main Street with the intention of

2:10:33being developed as a park.

2:10:35Unfortunately, the site has remained

2:10:37undeveloped for nearly 70 years and the

2:10:40city has no plans in the future to

2:10:42develop it as a park.

2:10:45Recognizing that uh in 2022, the site

2:10:48was included in the city's inventory of

2:10:50surplus property to be sold for

2:10:52affordable housing. Under this program,

2:10:55developers may petition council to

2:10:57purchase designated properties for a

2:10:59nominal fee so long as the property will

2:11:02be developed for affordable housing. And

2:11:04again, there's some specific

2:11:05stipulations under that program that

2:11:07detail uh what that means. Council voted

2:11:10to sell this property to Prosperity

2:11:12Alliance, who are a nonprofit developer

2:11:14out of Charlotte uh in November of last

2:11:17year for the nominal fee of $1. And the

2:11:20developer plans on building 33

2:11:22affordable housing units on the site.

2:11:24Again, I've included a copy of that

2:11:26resolution in your agenda book.

2:11:29Uh just briefly, this is a growth

2:11:32management plan showing where the West

2:11:34Clemensville Road Park site is. It's in

2:11:37GMA2 uh kind of in the south side of the

2:11:40city.

2:11:42Again, zooming in a little bit, this is

2:11:44a location map showing that the property

2:11:46is accessed via Ry Avenue, which is just

2:11:49northeast of the intersection of

2:11:51Clemensville

2:11:53uh and South Maine in the KO area.

2:11:57This is an aerial image of the property

2:11:59as it currently exists. It's mostly

2:12:01wooded and there's a small cleared area

2:12:04in the middle of the site.

2:12:07Just showing you a few uh images of the

2:12:09subject property. This is at the

2:12:11intersection of Maine and Ryan Avenue

2:12:14looking towards the property that those

2:12:17trees behind that home are the start of

2:12:19the park property.

2:12:21And going down the street. This is

2:12:23actually at the frontage of the park

2:12:26property.

2:12:27And one last image. This is looking into

2:12:30the cleared field portion of the

2:12:31property, but again, the vast majority

2:12:34of it is treed. There's a little bit of

2:12:36this field that goes to the left side of

2:12:39the image and wraps around uh some other

2:12:41residential properties.

2:12:45So the city and rec the city recreation

2:12:47and parks commission reviewed this

2:12:49request uh last week at their August 4th

2:12:52meeting. All members present express

2:12:54support for the proposal and planning

2:12:57staff also would recommend approval of

2:12:58this request. It would facilitate

2:13:01development of affordable housing in a

2:13:03convenient location with access to

2:13:04services, amenities and multimodal

2:13:07transportation. Uh again, should this

2:13:11board uh recommend approval, uh the next

2:13:14item or the next step will be uh to have

2:13:16a city council public hearing. And I'll

2:13:19be glad to answer any questions.

2:13:22>> Question for staff.

2:13:23>> Are there is there a requirement for the

2:13:25property to remain affordable uh

2:13:27residential when you do such a

2:13:29disposition? There is uh one thing uh

2:13:33the the actual resolution language is on

2:13:35my iPad, but I did brush up on it before

2:13:38coming up here. There's a 2-year period

2:13:40where they have to start development of

2:13:43the site within two years after

2:13:44receiving it. And then under that

2:13:46program, I believe it's a 30-year time

2:13:48frame. It's either 20 or 30 years, but I

2:13:51believe it's 30 years. The property has

2:13:53to remain affordable. Again, you can do

2:13:56that as either uh individual

2:13:59homeownership units or you can do it as

2:14:02kind of a managed complex situation

2:14:04where the holders of the property are

2:14:05keeping it affordable via rents and that

2:14:08part of the process is managed by the

2:14:11city's housing development department.

2:14:13>> Thank you. And a somewhat related

2:14:15question, during that two rather at the

2:14:18end of that two-year period, if there's

2:14:20been no activity, do we include do we

2:14:23the city include a reverter provision

2:14:26where we get the property back and could

2:14:29put it back on the market to someone

2:14:31else?

2:14:31>> The the contract would essentially

2:14:33become null and void at that point.

2:14:35Although just in practice,

2:14:38>> I would imagine the developer if they

2:14:40saw that kind of sunset coming up, they

2:14:42would probably reach out to the

2:14:44attorney's office andor council and

2:14:47again try and re-up the contract. Just

2:14:51for full disclosure, the original

2:14:53contract that was adopted in November,

2:14:55they were looking at doing town home

2:14:56units and in their current due diligence

2:14:58on the site, the developers are now

2:15:00looking at doing 33 single family homes.

2:15:03So, they're in fact going to be redoing

2:15:06their uh their contract with council in

2:15:09the coming months. So, it'll be a new

2:15:11date for the two-year clock.

2:15:14>> Thank you.

2:15:15>> And I guess the site plan will be coming

2:15:17up to us at a later date.

2:15:18>> Correct. Right now, it would need to be

2:15:21uh properly zoned. Well, if they decided

2:15:23to ultimately go through a single

2:15:25family, the current zoning would work,

2:15:27but it would have to go through the

2:15:28either a subdivision or a planning board

2:15:30review if they do a PRD. All

2:15:35right. Any other questions for staff?

2:15:39No one signed up to speak in opposition

2:15:40or support of this recommendation. Is

2:15:43anyone here that would like to be heard

2:15:45on this matter? Seeing no one, I'll

2:15:47declare the public hearing closed.

2:15:48What's motion pleasure of the board?

2:15:50>> I move that the planning board recommend

2:15:52approval of the disposition of property

2:15:55designated at West Clemensville Road

2:15:57Park.

2:15:58>> Second motion by Mr. Farby. Second by

2:16:00Mr. Patinho. Any discussion?

2:16:02All in favor sign of I.

2:16:04>> Any opposed? That's unanimous.

2:16:07>> Mr. Chairman of the board, that brings

2:16:08us to staff report. I won't turn to Kirk

2:16:10this time. I'll just do it myself. Uh,

2:16:12under work session, we're more than

2:16:14likely going to cancel that. Um, it

2:16:17seems like we're canceling a lot of

2:16:18those, but just the way the calendar is

2:16:20kind of working out, we don't have any

2:16:22we don't have anything ready to bring

2:16:23you, but I think in September, between

2:16:25September and October, we're going to

2:16:26have you at least three text amendments,

2:16:28if not four. And we may actually even be

2:16:32introducing you to the next um area for

2:16:35our next area plan. I'm not exactly sure

2:16:37where that falls out on the calendar,

2:16:39but we will be beginning that process

2:16:42probably even before this is adopted by

2:16:44the city and the count or at least the

2:16:46county. We'll begin the next area plan.

2:16:49So again, we'll send a cancellation

2:16:52notice uh or at least we'll try to

2:16:54remember to do that.

2:16:55>> [sighs]

2:16:56>> I think somehow the last one fell

2:16:57through the cracks and I think someone I

2:16:59think Clarence showed up perhaps for the

2:17:01for for the meeting because we forgot to

2:17:02send one out. Um we'll try to remember

2:17:05to do that. Uh and with that I'll turn

2:17:08to

2:17:10>> Oh yeah. Um

2:17:15do you have it? You don't have it on

2:17:17there. Um,

2:17:19if you're available next

2:17:22Wednesday

2:17:24between 2 and 4, Steve Smotherman, we're

2:17:27going to have a retirement party for

2:17:28Steve. He's retiring at the end of the

2:17:30month. Uh, so, you know, again, I I'll

2:17:34tell you, I moved my I moved my son into

2:17:36college this week, and the three days

2:17:38that I've been here, I've hardly been at

2:17:40my desk. So, um, I didn't actually send

2:17:43out an email asking for staff report

2:17:45items, or I would have had that on

2:17:46there. So, thanks for reminding me. Uh,

2:17:48but 2 to 4 on next Wednesday, uh, Steve

2:17:52Smotherman retirement reception in our

2:17:54conference room downstairs on the third

2:17:56floor. I'll turn to Mark for a zoning

2:17:59case preview.

2:18:00>> Yeah. So, um, that's actually as of

2:18:03later earlier today, this is a little

2:18:05out of date. So, now it's eight total

2:18:07items because one of those five new

2:18:08resing cases has been continued to

2:18:10October. So, it's actually going to be

2:18:13four new resoning cases, one continued

2:18:15reszoning case, which is the self

2:18:17stoages over at Brookberry.

2:18:20>> Um, that has quite a bit of opposition

2:18:21to it. So, expect a uh

2:18:24>> a nice crowd and three new planning

2:18:26board reviews.

2:18:29>> And it's a little bit of advance, you

2:18:31know, just a little advanced notice. We

2:18:32will have a a marker unveiling uh

2:18:35Sunday, October 11th. This is a forcy

2:18:37county marker. Um, but as part of the

2:18:39America 250 celebration, the information

2:18:42is on there. We'll try to remember to

2:18:44have that on there for your meeting next

2:18:45month as well. Um, but Sunday, October

2:18:4711th at 3 at the around the Louisville

2:18:51Volunteer Fire Department out on Shallow

2:18:53Road. And then just finally, I did want

2:18:56to introduce Sarah Dunishaw who is here.

2:18:59Um, if you wonder who's sitting back

2:19:01there, she is our budget analyst. uh

2:19:04recently became our budget analyst for

2:19:06the city and she's interested in

2:19:08learning more about what we do. So, she

2:19:09wanted to talk about a glutton for

2:19:12punishment. Come come and see what our

2:19:14planning board meeting is. I told her it

2:19:16was going to be a long one. So, anyway,

2:19:17if you're wondering who's sitting back

2:19:18there, she she is observing today and

2:19:21she's going to be coming at our

2:19:22apartment and just seeing some of the

2:19:24our day-to-day operations. So, I

2:19:26>> if you make call if you make house

2:19:27calls, I need help. [laughter]

2:19:30>> And Mr. Chairman, with that I am

2:19:32finished with staff report.

2:19:34>> All right. Well, thanks everybody for

2:19:35hanging in there.

2:19:36>> Uh I just want to give a special hurrah

2:19:40to every one of the staff members that

2:19:42must have must have worked double duty

2:19:45to prepare the information you provided

2:19:47to us last month. Thank you all.

2:19:49>> Absolutely

2:19:50>> very much.

2:19:51>> Thank you.

2:19:52>> All right. Before we adjourn, I'm going

2:19:53to note for Shel that I have put the

2:19:55green sheets right there. I'm not taking

2:19:57them home today. [laughter]

2:19:59I've done so many times lately.

2:20:01>> It sounds like you're admitting

2:20:02something.

2:20:02>> I am. I I [laughter] I'm I've been in

2:20:05the doghouse. So,

2:20:06>> we'll have our motion to adjourn before

2:20:08any more damage can be done. [laughter]

2:20:11>> I got it.