2026-09-14 - Planning Advisory Board

00:20[clears throat]

00:23I'd like to call uh Jacksonville

00:25Planning Advisory Regular Meeting uh

00:28September 14th to order today. Uh we're

00:31going to have Nick Sarendez to do the

00:33pledge of allegiance.

00:38I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

00:41United States of America and to the

00:43republic for which it stands, one nation

00:46under God, indivisible, with liberty and

00:49justice for all.

00:51>> And then we'll have Dr. Lassan do the

00:54invocation.

00:55>> Bow your heads, please. Lord, just uh

00:56thank you for this beautiful day here uh

00:59that we have and come together as a

01:00planning advisory committee and just uh

01:03let us uh put any differences uh aside

01:07and uh we always look out what's best

01:09for our community. Thank you for

01:10blessing this community with armed

01:12services and all our other citizens who

01:14make up this town and all the great

01:16things you have in mind for us in the

01:18future and just lead us in the right

01:19direction as we continue to move forward

01:22in our developments and we just make

01:24good choices in Christ's name. Amen.

01:26>> Amen.

01:29[clears throat and cough]

01:34>> All right. Uh we need a motion to adopt

01:37the agenda.

01:38>> Motion to approve the agenda as

01:39presented.

01:40>> Second.

01:41>> All right. Thank you, gentlemen.

01:44Um

01:46with the adoption of the agenda approved

01:49uh by Mr. March and Spring uh or I'm

01:54sorry, can we have a

01:55We need to have a vote, right? I'm

01:57sorry. Would like to uh vote by saying

02:01yes in the affirmative uh by raising

02:03your right hand

02:06and any nay by raising your right hand.

02:11All right, the agenda has been adopted.

02:14Uh we have public uh comment. Uh Mr.

02:16King, uh it looks like we have John

02:19Pierce. Uh he will be speaking for the

02:21public comment.

02:23>> That's correct, Chairman. Thank you,

02:24sir. Mr. Pierce, if you'd like to come

02:26up to the stand.

02:31[snorts]

02:35>> You got three minutes on the clock, but

02:37if you need a little extra time, let us

02:38know.

02:39>> Plenty of time, maybe.

02:40>> There we go. On behalf of you, Tash and

02:43Barker, I made a request to resume this

02:46property to RHM.

02:49uh look through the agenda and I don't

02:50think it's going to have a negative

02:51impact on the neighborhood to be honest

02:54with you

02:56when they purchase the

02:59they they thought they were purchasing a

03:01module home. The only way you can tell

03:02the difference is to look at the numbers

03:04and

03:07that that's what they thought they were

03:08first. And I actually there's been

03:12several city inspections and I got a

03:15copy of when they submitted for the

03:17building permit and on here

03:20on these on these plans it was shown to

03:22be a manufacturer home which doesn't

03:25meet the North Carolina building code

03:26but you can't tell the difference just

03:27looking at them. and they've uh they've

03:31done a lot of homes in that neighborhood

03:33and they ordered they thought they

03:35ordered a mod home was the intent

03:37and [clears throat]

03:39it probably they probably waste at least

03:42$40,000 if we can't get it resigned and

03:45you can't look at them and tell the

03:46difference in them. The only way you can

03:48tell the difference in if you get that

03:49number like I said before in the

03:53application to the city it would show to

03:56be a manufactured

04:00manufactured thing would not build the

04:03HUD requirements instead of North

04:04Carolina building code. It was as I

04:07submit to y'all it was just accidental

04:09and

04:12and according to their own reporting it

04:15shows it won't be any negative impact on

04:16the neighborhood.

04:18It won't decrease the values and I'll be

04:20here to answer any questions that the

04:22planning board may have. I mean that's

04:23all for the time.

04:25>> All right. Thank you Mr. Pierce. Thank

04:27you.

04:28>> Um [clears throat] his item will be uh

04:30in the new business part of our agenda

04:32today. Uh so we may bounce back to Mr.

04:35Pierce for some questioning. Uh but

04:38thank you for your public comment there,

04:39sir. And uh we'll move to the as we have

04:44no one else for public comment, we'll

04:45move to the review and approval of the

04:47minutes.

04:48>> Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the

04:49minutes as presented.

04:50>> I'll second that.

04:52>> Thank you, gentlemen. Uh we'll have a

04:54vote for approval of the minutes. uh

04:57raising your right hand for the

04:58affirmative uh please raise it

05:02and for negative or for the nay uh raise

05:05your right hand we have none

05:08[clears throat]

05:09and the uh minutes have been approved uh

05:13if we can have uh well Mr. Councilman

05:16Sosa is not here today so Mr. Ryan King

05:19can we get an update from the council

05:22>> thank you Mr. Chairman, be happy to um

05:25for your September

05:27council liaison report uh report on two

05:31uh two different city council meetings.

05:33At their August 18th, 2026 meeting,

05:36council took following actions that were

05:38relevant to the planning world. Uh they

05:41annex the VA clinic site which is at the

05:43intersection of Carolina Forest and

05:45Western Boulevard. So that's now part of

05:48the um city limits and we are processing

05:51multiple plans for that VA clinic

05:53subdivisions. We'll do a final plat then

05:55we'll have site plans um

05:58erosion control storm water. There's a

06:00there's it's a large site so there's

06:01going to be several different building

06:03plans that that go along with the

06:04process. Building plans are in the

06:05office being reviewed now.

06:08Um then the other [clears throat] item

06:09is that they approved uh a temporary

06:12social district for downtown October

06:14Fest. So, there'll be a social district

06:16that will be at the 25th and 26th of

06:19this month, I believe. And it's it's in

06:21a specified area that was u per their

06:24adopted ordinance that identifies which

06:26parcels and which areas are part of that

06:29social district. And then on September

06:31the 8th, um city council has appointed

06:35or taken the following actions. Number

06:37one, they appointed Mr. Steve and Steve

06:39Goodson to the planning advisory board

06:42for an existing two-year term that will

06:44expire on June 30th, 2027. So, welcome

06:47to Mr. Goodson on to the planning

06:48advisory board. Glad to have you. Um,

06:50we've almost got a full board now. Got

06:53one left. And then, um, several

06:56voluntary annexations along Richelands

06:58Highway started the process that they

07:00will finish that process next Tuesday,

07:02the 22nd of September. And that's for

07:04the seven Bruce site on on Richlands

07:07Highway. And then there's a development

07:08track that's four or five parcels land

07:10called Veraritoss. And then there's

07:12another grouping of four or five

07:14properties that we're just referring to

07:15as YAP is YAP and others. There's

07:18there's four or five small parcels that

07:21um are being kind of combined for

07:23development opportunity for several out

07:26parcel type developments. So be happy to

07:28answer any questions that the board may

07:30have. But that's a quick council report

07:32for Councilman Sosa.

07:34>> Any questions, guys?

07:37All right. Well, thank you, Mr. King,

07:38for the council update, but we're going

07:40to [clears throat] bounce back to you

07:41for some old business.

07:52>> Take my

07:55take

07:57[laughter]

08:04this morning. I did

08:07All right. So, resuming um as the

08:10planning board may remember last month,

08:13uh we brought forth a unified univ

08:16unified development text amendment for

08:20article 4 section 41 use table and

08:23section 42 use specific standards

08:25dwelling multifamily. and planning board

08:28had some concerns as it related to um

08:31the things [clears throat] that we

08:32talked about with hotel conversions and

08:35um we talked a little bit about doing

08:37special use permits, things of that

08:38nature and we went back and evaluated

08:41the information and felt due to

08:43downzoning concerns that uh we we

08:46weren't ready to kind of be able to um

08:49bring that forward. We had some

08:51discussions with the applicant uh which

08:53is TWWC Campleun LLC. Um and just to

08:57remind everybody, this amendment would

08:59allow additional housing opportunities

09:00through the reuse of properties, provide

09:02workforce housing. Um and the additional

09:06background is in 2014 when council

09:07adopted the unified development

09:09ordinance, there was a 350 foot um

09:12standard from a main roadway for

09:14multifamily. And what the new proposal

09:18from hearing the information concern

09:20that um plan board gave us last month is

09:23kind of just making this a little bit

09:25more simple. Uh clean up a couple of

09:27items. Get rid of this uh items that's

09:30before you and strike through to get rid

09:31of the the overall two dwelling

09:34multifamily standards. Just go with one.

09:37Have them allowed and permitted um

09:39permitted in the quarter commercial

09:41zone. And then on the right hand side

09:43column in the additional standards for

09:45use specific standards that's where we

09:47will basically bring in that 350 foot

09:50rule. But as we're proposing tonight

09:53that we're we're talking about backing

09:54that down from 350 to 300. So if if

09:58you're within the first three if your

10:00parcel's within the first 300 ft of a

10:02main roadway, which we're talking about

10:03now having it defined so that way it's

10:05not subjective. Well, is Gum Branch a

10:08major roadway? Is is Target Street a

10:10major roadway? It's going to be defined

10:11per the unified development ordinance.

10:15Um we're talking about bringing that

10:18standard down from 350 to 300.

10:20And

10:23along with this, because of the um the

10:27legislative updates that have been put

10:29into general statutes, we cannot

10:31regulate single family dwellings. So,

10:33we're getting rid of the townhouse

10:36from this section of the code. We're

10:38going to, you've seen several

10:40amendments. You're going to continue to

10:41see stuff. If we find something that's

10:43in con conflict with statute that we're

10:45going to have to basically get rid of

10:46components. Um, so that's why the

10:48townhouse at the top is is stricken.

10:51And then we're going to define in

10:52article 9 what a major um roadway is.

10:56Actually, it's already in there, which

10:57is a road or street or highway of

10:59considerable continuity designed primary

11:01as a radial or cross town traffic artery

11:03for intercommunication between various

11:06sectors of the city or its metropolitan

11:08area.

11:10So, with that being said, um facts

11:14[clears throat] to consider, uh this is

11:16in response to concerns that's been

11:18shared by the development community

11:19recognized by staff as a need for

11:21clarity. This does follow, we believe,

11:24council's goal for the annual evaluation

11:26of the unified development ordinance.

11:27Um, we do that continually, but this is

11:30part of their goal that they've given

11:31us. Number four specifically is assess

11:34and appropriately respond to the needs

11:35and quality of life of the community.

11:38And then supports council's resolution

11:402023-9,

11:42which is h housing [clears throat]

11:44development goals and objectives in the

11:45city of Jacksonville.

11:48Some facts to consider. clarifies the

11:50table of uses and moves the setback

11:52requirement to the use specific

11:53standards under section 42 creates new

11:56housing opportunity and we believe that

11:58it follows uh the KMA plans goals and

12:01policies as identified on the screen.

12:05Um, as we've introduced to you recently,

12:09anytime that you have to consider a text

12:12amendment, you know, you can use this

12:14following uh example here to kind of

12:16determine yes or no on whether this

12:19meets the standards. If you check them

12:20yes, that's gives you a reason to um

12:23support the amendment. If it's no, that

12:25gives you a reason to recommend a denial

12:29of um the text amendment. And uh the

12:35statute says for a text amendment, you

12:37know, is the consistency is the

12:40amendment consistent with the camel use

12:42plan. That's one of the items that

12:43you've got to determine and your

12:46recommendation address plan consistency

12:48in other matters as the planning board

12:50deems appropriate.

12:54So motions uh motion options. So, this

12:57is where you can refer to your

12:59worksheet, but one would be recommend

13:00approval of the UDO text amendment.

13:02Number two would be to deny the text

13:04amendment, and number three would be to

13:06defer action. Uh, and and let us know

13:09what concerns that staff needs to work

13:11on to bring back. Hopefully, we've we've

13:13given that information to you tonight

13:14compared to last month. Uh, but with

13:17that being said, be happy to answer any

13:18questions that the board may have.

13:53Well, I will kick it off with a question

13:54for you, Mr. King. Um, the

13:59I see the chart here or the use table

14:01for residential uses. Um, so we're going

14:04to be changing this from a a dwelling

14:07multif family. That's going to be a if

14:09this is approved, this will be a

14:12permitted use. It will not will not be a

14:14special use in the commercial quarter

14:16commercial quarter zone.

14:19>> That's how it is today.

14:20>> Okay, that's how it is today. So, if

14:22somebody wanted to convert one, it'd be

14:24approved or

14:26>> So, I think we have to we need to look

14:27at it two ways. Um, if you want to build

14:30a brand new apartment complex today, the

14:32standard is it's got to be 350 ft away

14:34from a main roadway. If this amendment

14:37is approved, we're going to clearly

14:38define so that way we know, okay, well,

14:41what is a main roadway versus what is

14:43not? And then it would be to reduce that

14:46350 to 300. Everything else stays the

14:49same other than where is the information

14:51found in the text. We're talking about

14:53moving it from the use table over to the

14:54use specific standards, which is where

14:56that area belongs. Um, instead of having

15:00the same use in there twice, one within

15:02350, one without, you know, beyond 350.

15:05Okay.

15:06>> So, really, it's just reducing it from

15:08350 to 300 ft. If you have an existing

15:11hotel and you want to convert it, you

15:14could do that as long as you're 300 ft

15:15away based on this proposed amendment.

15:18If you leave it as it is, it's got to be

15:20at least 350 ft.

15:23>> All right.

15:30So my my question I wasn't here last

15:33month so obviously it was deferred for

15:37this very reason we're discussing here

15:38was that where the changes were cutting

15:40back from 350 to 300.

15:43I mean there's a reason for why it got

15:45voted on and deferred till this

15:47following month.

15:48>> Right. So

15:49>> what's changed since that time? The

15:51thought was that well we the board would

15:53like to see it as a special use permit

15:56and because of the down zone bill we

15:59believe that that we would not be able

16:01to make that a special use.

16:04>> Okay.

16:05>> So [snorts] talking with the applicant

16:09we just basically scale back the 350 to

16:12300.

16:14>> Okay. It what it does is it doesn't open

16:16up every single possible hotel because

16:20that was the concern that I heard last

16:22month. Doesn't open every hotel up to

16:25being converted. You'd have to be at

16:27least 300 ft away from the main roadway.

16:30>> The parcel would have to be

16:31>> all right. That that clarifies for me

16:33since I wasn't part of that discussion

16:36last month.

16:40Ready

16:43for an emotion? Ready for a motion.

16:46>> Real quick, um

16:48on the attachment, I just want to make

16:51sure

16:53we've been having some some issues with

16:56um

16:59hold. Let me make sure I'm looking at

17:00the right one. Hold on.

17:15I think I know.

17:29>> Okay, I'm fine. Sorry about that. I was

17:30in I was on the next agenda item and it

17:32just didn't look right. That's why.

17:34Appreciate you double checking that for

17:36us.

17:39>> Does anybody have a motion one way or

17:41the other on this?

17:41>> I do.

17:42>> Mr. Chairman,

17:44>> like to recommend approval of the UDO

17:46text amendment found in attachment A,

17:48finding it is consistent with the text

17:50amendment standards of the UDO and

17:52adopted CAMA land use plan specifically

17:55uh goals 13 and 41.

17:58>> I second that. All right, we've got a uh

18:02motion and by Mr. Spring and a second by

18:05Dr. Lzon. Uh if you'll raise your right

18:09hand for the affirmative

18:14and a right hand for any nazs. We have

18:18none. The motion is approved.

18:22>> Thank you. All right, we will be moving

18:25to new business. [snorts]

18:27Uh, I guess we'll go right back to you,

18:29Mr. King, while you're up there.

18:39All right, new business tonight. Uh, new

18:41business agenda one is a zoning map

18:43amendment for 25 East Drive.

18:54Uh, Mr. John L. Pearson Associates on

18:56behalf of Ustitch and Barker Custom

18:58Homes is requesting to reszone a 26 acre

19:02parcel land located at 25 East Drive.

19:05The current zoning is residential single

19:07family 7. The proposed zoning is

19:10residential multi I'm sorry residential

19:12mobile home. [clears throat]

19:14Uh before you you have a ortho

19:16photograph that shows the area. You can

19:18see that there are sightuilt homes

19:20within the area,

19:23some of which are modulars.

19:26This is the existing zoning is all

19:28surrounding is yellow, which is the

19:30residential single family. The

19:32cross-hatching is because it's within

19:33the flight path overlay. So, that's why

19:35it's a little bit busy because that's

19:36it's within a flight path. Uh the

19:39proposed on the right is your

19:41residential mobile home district if

19:44approved.

19:46Uh the KMA plan identifies this area as

19:49medium density residential.

19:52So Mr. Pierce alluded to during the

19:54public comment session that um there was

19:57a building permit that was submitted to

19:59the city of Jacksonville's office for a

20:01modular home being constructed at that

20:03location and that permit was issued. Um

20:08there has been some inspections and as a

20:11result there was basically some

20:13questions that were raised and upon

20:16further review the type of application

20:18that has been installed there is not to

20:21the North Carolina building codes or

20:23modular. It is actually indeed a mobile

20:26home which is not allowed per the

20:28district. So, um, as a result, you know,

20:31we reached out to the applicant, um, had

20:34a conversation and they have a couple of

20:37options. One of which is to try to

20:38reszone the property. Uh, another option

20:41would be to relocate it to a location

20:44that, um, accommodates the mobile home.

20:47Um [clears throat] as you will find in

20:51the staff report um we have outlined

20:54that it is staff's belief that um

21:03primarily in C and H that we believe

21:08that the RMH zoning is inconsistent with

21:11the existing development within the

21:12area.

21:15Um

21:18likewise in D, it's it's all surrounded

21:21by residential single family 7 zoning

21:33and that

21:38reszoning this to RH will deviate from

21:40the logical and orderly development

21:42patterns as the neighborhood consists of

21:44detached single family modular homes

21:46that are built to that higher standard.

21:48Uh North Carolina building code

21:51versus in essence what a vehicle is a

21:54vehicle that's built to HUD standards

21:56versus so we're in we're in wind zones

21:59things of that nature what we reviewed

22:01was modular um when that permit came in

22:05from a zoning perspective. So, um, be

22:08happy to answer any questions that the

22:09board may have at this time, but, uh,

22:12that's that's kind of where staff is.

22:15>> Could you just define, I guess, the

22:17difference between a modular home for

22:19the board and a mobile home

22:22or is there

22:24>> Well, I can tell you a sightuilt house

22:26and a modular are built to the North

22:28Carolina building code. Uh, let's see if

22:31I can find

22:33[clears throat]

22:34>> It doesn't have to be exact, Ryan.

22:35Sorry.

22:36It's just basically the type of

22:38construction, you know, one's built

22:40meeting the North Carolina building

22:41code, one's not a building,

22:44>> so it's built to a um HUD standard.

22:47>> Okay.

22:56>> Well, my issue with it is that um I

23:00think it's unfortunate, you know, what

23:01they ordered and what they got. you

23:03know, I think that's, you know, too bad

23:05for the, you know, I know it's um not a

23:07good thing for the applicant, you know,

23:08coming here who is involved. Uh but at

23:11[snorts] the same time, we've also I've

23:13got to look at this is we've worked so

23:16hard over all the years to prevent spot

23:18zoning and we've tried to clean up a lot

23:21of places and here you have strictly

23:23residential single family. the whole

23:25area is that that and now we're trying

23:28to ask for an exception to make it RM

23:31and uh I think it just presents a

23:33problem because then we start getting

23:34into exceptions exceptions exceptions

23:37you know so uh um it's too bad they they

23:40got sold the wrong product but at the

23:44same time I think we have to look at

23:45what's currently zoned and we we we I've

23:48been on the board a long time and we've

23:49really tried to work hard to clean up

23:51this spot zoning which really creates a

23:53lot of issues you uh had in the past. So

23:57that's those are my concerns about it.

24:07So Dr. Con, since you mentioned I just

24:09going to kind of point this out. So

24:11staff has done some research on on the

24:13spot zoning component. You know, that's

24:15something where believe it used to be

24:17illegal, but um now it's it's actually

24:20legal in North Carolina. So it can be

24:22done but you've got to basically do

24:25certain things. Uh the presumption of

24:28reason shifts when the zoning is not

24:29spot zoning. Judicial review assumes

24:31reasonlessness unless shown otherwise.

24:34Uh it shifts the city to establish that

24:36the reasonzoning was reasonable. So

24:38you've got to decide is this a

24:40reasonable request.

24:42>> Um

24:44you know factors to consider um the size

24:48of the tract of land. Does it have any

24:50unique attributes? Compatibility of the

24:53disputed zoning with existing comp

24:55zoning plans um which we've said you

24:58know this whole entire area um

25:01identified as medium density

25:02residential.

25:04um the relationship of new uses to the

25:07current uses of the adjacent tracks and

25:10um

25:16[snorts]

25:18and you know there's been some court

25:19cases on this. One example is that um

25:24court case emphasized that council's

25:26decision to reszone was contrary to

25:27planning staff and the planning board's

25:28recommendation. and the court believed

25:30that the that made the reasonzoning,

25:32barring extraordinary factors, even more

25:34unreasonable. So, it it's not that it

25:36can't be done. It's just you've got to

25:39have good reasons for why it is or

25:43isn't.

25:44>> So, I know that's kind of different than

25:46what we've had in the past, but I just

25:48wanted to kind of point that out because

25:49I think

25:50>> that's, you know, that's one of the

25:51first things that goes through our

25:52minds,

25:53>> but also we're looking at two different

25:54types of constructions, too. You know,

25:56what's consistent with the area, too.

25:58Mhm.

26:02>> Is there any standards that are

26:03different between the mobile home

26:05designation and a residential single

26:07family 7? Like as far as

26:12>> I mean there could be different uses one

26:14versus the other. Um there could be

26:18different setbacks. That's all going to

26:19be listed as within your attachments. Um

26:22I do know that the district when we

26:24adopted the UDO in 2014, the RMH zone

26:26was not there. staff actually brought

26:29forth this zoning district with the idea

26:31behind um we have several subdivisions,

26:34some of which um you know predated the

26:37UDO where it's it's literally a mobile

26:40home subdivision

26:42and our zoning would not allow a mobile

26:46home to be swapped for that subdivision

26:49even though the restricted covenants

26:50that the city does not get involved with

26:52do not allow the change. So, we actually

26:54created a district as an opportunity for

26:57if a neighborhood wanted to get together

27:00and petition to reszone their

27:01neighborhood to an RH district, that

27:05could be done. This neighborhood as a

27:08whole is not coming in requesting that

27:09they change the their neighborhood to

27:11RH. This is one parcel within a

27:14development looking to change the

27:16zoning. Um, that's that's why this was

27:18put in here. We currently don't have

27:19anything zoned RH. It was created to

27:23provide an opportunity for neighborhoods

27:26to change if they needed to.

27:32>> Information,

27:32>> Ryan, I I'm going to give you what

27:35information I've got. Um, are any of the

27:38homes that are currently in this

27:40neighborhood now, uh, would they fit in

27:42the category of mobile homes or is that

27:45something you don't know?

27:47>> I don't know. I know that the ones that

27:49we've permitted recently, including this

27:52one, we permitted them as a modular.

27:54>> Mhm.

27:55>> Um there are site constructed homes here

27:58that are not modulars, but are built the

28:00North Carolina building code at the time

28:01they were constructed. There may be um a

28:05mobile home that's left in this

28:07neighborhood. I'm not 100% sure.

28:09>> Or or a home that looks like it's a

28:12modular home but turns out to be a

28:14mobile home. And the reason I say that

28:15is I know of at least one case where a

28:18house that we thought was a modular home

28:21turned out to be a mobile home and it

28:23made a little difference in what we were

28:25trying to, you know, what somebody was

28:27trying to get for it. And we we always

28:29for 20 years we thought it was a modular

28:31home and it turned out to be a mobile

28:33home.

28:35>> Yeah. Yeah,

28:36>> the the planning office has issued

28:38permits for two or three that's in this

28:40area that some that are off this screen

28:42that are modular or sight built.

28:44>> And I and I I I've been to at least one

28:46house in this area that I could swear it

28:49was a mobile home, but it again it it

28:54it's very hard to tell sometimes.

28:55>> So mobile and and and modulars are both

28:58manufactured. So sometimes they are

29:00brought in on a trailer,

29:01>> they are lifted in place with a crane.

29:04So, I mean, we had one right here down

29:06from city hall that we had some calls

29:08on, and the comment was, "We didn't

29:09think that mobile homes were allowed."

29:11We're like, "No, that's a modular." And

29:13now, if you drive by, you probably

29:14wouldn't recognize which house I'm

29:16talking about. Um, but that's because

29:18they were making a judgment before it

29:21was completely finished.

29:22>> Yeah. However, I will state that if you

29:25reszone it, mobile home, that means

29:28someone with a true mobile home can move

29:31in there

29:32>> whether it looks nice like a modular

29:34home or not. That you have to remember

29:35that when you reszone something is that

29:37you've changed the permitted uses for

29:39this land.

29:40>> So,

29:42[sighs] it's tough.

29:47Does the um city city zoning for RMH

29:52does it have any uh I guess what's the

29:54right word like foundation uh like I

29:57know some trailers have the I don't know

29:59if I'm using the right verbiage but like

30:00skirts around the bottom of it or some

30:03sort of appeal because I know that's a

30:05big factor in neighborhoods. Uh or did

30:08it or could they leave it open and just

30:09on its wheels were exposed?

30:13So for

30:16single family residential,

30:19the state has taken our ability away to

30:22regulate design elements if it's built

30:24to that North Carolina building code. So

30:27if it's a site built, we have zero

30:29control. The building code is what

30:31controls it. But that's not necessarily

30:34how it looks. That's how it's

30:36constructed.

30:38I do believe that in our use specific

30:40standards uh for a mobile home, we do

30:43have um requirements for a manufactured

30:47mobile home to be skirted a certain way.

30:54>> So hopefully that answers the question.

30:56I think so because I mean to me there's

30:58a big factor of you know uh driving

31:01through a neighborhood and you can see

31:02wheels hanging out the bottom of a

31:03trailer or if you have a nice looking

31:06foundation style skirt around it

31:11but

31:13I guess that's for everybody to decide.

31:15[snorts]

31:19Yes. So within the UDO um standards for

31:22for for

31:24a mobile home is it's got to be oriented

31:27so that the side parallel to the street

31:30um as long as side is parallel to the

31:32adjacent street. Um

31:35all transport lights, tongue, moving

31:37hitch shall be removed before the

31:39occupancy of the home. The roof of the

31:41mobile home shall be finished with a

31:42type of shingle customarily or typically

31:45used in stick belt construction or other

31:47materials determined appropriate by the

31:49city manager or the designate. Exterior

31:51sighting the home shall consist

31:52predominately of wood, hardboard, vinyl

31:55or aluminum horizontal lab siding not

31:57exceeding the reflective reflectivity of

32:00gloss white paint and shall be

32:02comparable in composition, appearance

32:05and durability to the exterior sighting

32:06commonly used in sight built residential

32:08construction. And the final item is the

32:11home shall be located on a poured

32:13foundation or on a continuously dug and

32:16poured concrete footing around the

32:17perimeter of the home. The home shall

32:20include a continuous and permanent

32:21brick, stone or masonry foundation or

32:24curtain wall from the frame to the

32:26ground unpierced except for required

32:28ventilation access. So those are the

32:31standards and I believe um that's what's

32:34around the base of this this home that's

32:36been placed here already.

32:39So, I think that that would already be

32:42kind of covered, but the biggest issue

32:44is that the type of construction is not

32:46allowed in the zoning district.

32:51Just sounds like to me like we have a a

32:53code in place to kind of keep these

32:56things looking nice, a trailer, I guess,

32:58or a mobile home. It's not like uh you

33:00can just roll one in and open up doors

33:03and have it set up. So, uh, seems like a

33:06positive thing to me that the city does

33:08have that in place. [snorts]

33:11>> Ryan, was there a, um, requirement of

33:14size that it had to be for that area?

33:18>> There's not.

33:19>> Okay.

33:20>> Like, and once again, on on the single

33:23family side of that equation, I'm 99%

33:26sure that the city governments cannot

33:29regulate minimum size of houses to begin

33:33with. The state building code identifies

33:36where you got to have certain things,

33:38but zoning regulations as it relates to

33:40single family, the legislature has

33:43they've removed any and all regulatory

33:46powers from the local governments as it

33:48relates to single family dwellings.

33:53>> If my colleagues if my colleagues want

33:55to speak otherwise and you by all means,

33:57but that's that's what I understand.

33:59>> So, it's already there in place. This

34:02house this this was a modular house

34:05permitted. They started they brought it

34:07on site. They started the construction

34:09and it was stopped because it was deemed

34:12the inappropriate type of construction.

34:15>> Oh, okay. So, so

34:18modular doesn't wouldn't fall under the

34:22um residential

34:24>> modular does. That's built to the North

34:26Carolina building code.

34:28>> Mobile homes are not.

34:30>> Right. Right. But you said it started

34:32out as a modular and they stopped it.

34:34>> When they applied for a permit, they

34:36checked the box that it was a modular

34:37unit.

34:38>> Mhm.

34:39>> And the permit was approved based on it

34:41being modular. Right.

34:42>> Between the permit being issued and

34:44construction, it it was different.

34:47Something changed.

34:52>> Okay.

34:54So now it's going to get rolled in

34:56instead of brought in.

34:58>> It's already there.

34:59>> Yeah.

35:01I whether it's it's brought in on

35:03trailer and then lift it all in a crane

35:04or whether it's backed in and then they

35:08remove the parts. I I mean that's

35:12that's just the frame in which it sits

35:13on. As long as it's to the codes,

35:17it doesn't matter planning staff whether

35:18it's on a chassis or whether it's not.

35:20If it meets the North Carolina building

35:22code versus having a HUD certification,

35:25>> this one has a HUD certification, not it

35:27doesn't meet the North Carolina building

35:29codes.

35:30>> [snorts]

35:37>> Mr. Pierce, do you have anything to add

35:38to maybe this to sway us one way or the

35:40other or

35:42>> I don't know about like [laughter]

35:46ain't too much a twisting arms.

35:47[clears throat]

35:48This home is set up with peers and he's

35:52putting them just like he did the other

35:53ones. And now he's there was no mobile

35:55home on this site. He's pulled it off.

35:58He's replaced several out there and put

36:00back modular and this will have a solid

36:03brick foundation around it and I don't

36:06even think it's required for your house

36:07to have a solid brick foundation around

36:08it now.

36:10>> Ain't that correct Brian?

36:12>> As I just stated, we cannot

36:14>> you cannot determine and that's what the

36:17plans are cuz everyone he's done he's

36:19put a solid foundation and like I'm

36:21saying you can't tell the difference in

36:22it by looking at it. It was just

36:25accidental.

36:27That's what he ordered was a modular,

36:29but it got delivered not a modular.

36:32And like I said, it was already it was

36:34in his building permit. There was a spec

36:36in there that said it was a hood home.

36:40All right, but that's it. If you got any

36:42questions, I'll be here. Thank you.

36:43>> Anybody in the board have any questions

36:44for Mr. Pierce?

36:47just

36:49as the consumer side, it appears he

36:51ordered something and something else was

36:54delivered and that's outside of us.

36:57>> That's right.

37:00>> Yeah. On the I can't speak to that.

37:02Certainly that's a possibility on the

37:04permit application. On the first page of

37:06our permit application, you check are

37:08you adding, are you taking away or

37:10demolishing? Are you demolishing all of

37:12the structure, just the electrical part

37:14of the structure? Then it goes on down

37:17to is it commercial, is it residential,

37:20is it modular. It's we have a mobile

37:22home setup. It's a totally different

37:24application for mobile home setups and

37:27the box that was checked on that

37:29application was modular.

37:31>> So how did you discover this was not

37:34modular

37:35>> during the inspection process?

37:37>> Inspection process.

37:47So, so we when we when an issue comes

37:50up, we ask the building official to go

37:52out there and to determine, you know, is

37:55this what we permitted on from a zoning

37:58perspective? Um, is this built to the

38:00North Carolina building code or is it

38:02built to the HUD standards? And based on

38:03their inspection, it is not built to the

38:06North Carolina. It is a HUD structure.

38:08>> Well, I kind of come back. It's just not

38:10built to state standards.

38:12>> Mhm.

38:12>> So, I'm concerned about the quality of

38:14the construction.

38:19>> Well, I I will kick

38:22again for what it's worth. I remember it

38:24was a a long time ago that we went to

38:27the uh I went to the League of M

38:28municipalities meeting and the lobby

38:31group that was there was lobbying really

38:34hard to have mobile homes upgraded to

38:38the point where they were like modular

38:40homes and they were they they had

38:42actually one in there and we went in to

38:44look at it and they were telling us this

38:45is what it has this what so somewhere

38:48down the line somebody's going to end up

38:50trying to push mobile homes into that

38:53package. Now, they haven't done it yet,

38:56but as you well know, it doesn't take a

38:59whole lot to change something.

39:04For what it's worth,

39:07>> if we move this to RMH uh zoning, are we

39:11is the next applicant or does anyone

39:14have the chance to move it back to

39:16residential single family home? I know

39:18we've been talking about downzoning

39:19quite a bit with the state legislation

39:21uh changes.

39:23>> The property owner would have to sign on

39:25to that.

39:26>> Okay. But it does have the ability to be

39:28moved back to RSF7

39:30at some point

39:32>> with with the property owner signature.

39:33That's correct. We wouldn't be able to

39:35do a staff initiated resoning without an

39:39owner signature.

39:40>> Signature. They have to apply for it.

39:47Well, do we have a motion or any more

39:50discussion?

39:57Personally think our hands are tied on

39:59the spot zoning. [clears throat]

40:02A road we don't want to go down.

40:11I'll take a stab at it. Um, I I move

40:14that we not approve this based on the

40:18uh uh under the map amendment standards

40:20set forth in item number C and D.

40:22They're inconsistent with the area and

40:25they are not compatible with the

40:27existing uh zoning and uh

40:32>> All right. Do we have a second?

40:33>> I'll second. We've got a motion by Dr.

40:36Lassan uh to reject this and we've got a

40:40second by Mr. March.

40:44>> Uh, if we can raise our right hand to

40:47approve this. Uh, or no, I'm sorry.

40:51Yeah. To approve this. Raise your right

40:53hand. [snorts]

40:58>> Please get all our discussion out before

41:00that.

41:00>> Okay.

41:01>> You now that a motion's been made,

41:04there's additional discussion I believe

41:05can happen.

41:06>> Yeah. If you have if you have a little

41:08bit,

41:08>> Mr. My only concern is I mean I I feel

41:10for the guy. My only concern is I'm not

41:13too familiar with the area, but

41:16there could be another situation three,

41:18four years down the road

41:21and the same situation could potentially

41:23occur and you should could come back and

41:25ask again ask for spot zoning and your

41:28hands would potentially be tied because

41:30you approved it one time and as opposed

41:33to maybe not approve and then they you

41:36know a kind of a precedent had been set

41:38if you approve it. So

41:40>> that's right.

41:41>> Cool.

41:42>> Thank you for your input on that. Um

41:45[clears throat]

41:46so uh

41:50>> good

41:51>> just a point of clarification. Was there

41:53al the motion did it include the

41:55consistency statement with the camel's

41:57plan?

41:58>> I might have missed that.

42:00>> Thank you.

42:03>> I believe Dr. Lassan pointed out two two

42:07separate

42:08>> Yeah. under the map amendment standards

42:10item number C and item item D that was

42:12presented to us you know at the

42:14presentation of the um subject to be

42:18talked about tonight.

42:19>> You said these are inconsistent. It's

42:21inconsistent with the existing

42:23development area and zoning

42:27and it's it's not compatible for the

42:30existing zoning where the area is

42:32already for single family and it's not

42:35the house is not built to to

42:37manufacturing standards state standards

42:43and as I may point out I'm sure Ryan

42:44would agree that you know yet we are an

42:47advisory committee so you know um That's

42:50I put the motion out there. The

42:52applicant will still have a chance to go

42:53before city council and [snorts] uh and

42:56present their case, too.

42:59>> That's right. And uh I imagine the uh

43:02adjacent land owners, they'll be

43:03notified as well uh prior to the city

43:06council meeting, so they'll have their

43:07chance to speak their voices as well.

43:11>> That is correct. And this would be

43:12slated to go before the city council in

43:15in next month. second meeting, second

43:17city council meeting of next month. I

43:19believe it's listed in the um agenda

43:22item. So, it should be October

43:26the 20th, but there will be signs posted

43:29uh newspaper ads and um letters will go

43:32out to every adjoining property owner as

43:34the chairman stated.

43:35>> Have you had any feedback from

43:36neighboring properties about it?

43:38>> We have not had any notifications that

43:39will we have to notify between 10 and 25

43:42days prior to the hearing. So, it's it's

43:44a little bit too early to do the

43:46notifications yet. I believe it is. I

43:48haven't haven't checked that, but if

43:49today's the the 14th, uh the 20th of

43:53October, it's we're not I don't think

43:55we're quite there at that window yet.

43:57We're just a little bit past that

43:58opening.

44:02>> Looks like several properties there

44:04would almost be a mobile home, Ryan.

44:06Like down the street, see two blocks

44:09over to your right. We we looked at that

44:11and based on the information on file

44:15they were modulars.

44:16>> They were.

44:16>> Yeah. Because we certainly looked at

44:18that

44:19>> and as Mr. Pierce had pointed out a lot

44:21of the clients done multi multiple

44:24modulars and this just happened to be

44:26accidental unfortunately for this

44:28scenario. But

44:30does anybody have any more input or are

44:32we going to move forward with voting?

44:36All right. So we will make a or the mo

44:39it was vote or motion to uh disapprove

44:43this. If you'll signify by raising your

44:46right hand to reject this uh

44:50please raise your right hand. I'm sorry.

44:51>> No am I wording that right?

44:53>> What are you doing now?

44:54>> The motion is to deny.

44:55>> The motion is to deny. So if you'll

44:58signify that by raising your right hand

45:00>> or no for denial.

45:04>> To deny. You're agreeing with the motion

45:07to deny.

45:08>> Yes.

45:09>> My motion to deny.

45:10>> Yes.

45:11>> Yes. Sorry. Sorry if that was a little

45:12word cluttered.

45:14>> All right. And if you'll raise your

45:16right hand to uh approve this motion or

45:21to to deny this uh maybe I'm word

45:25scrambling this.

45:27>> You're against the motion.

45:29>> If you're against the motion, raise your

45:31right hand. Sorry guys. First meeting.

45:32This the chairperson. raise your right

45:34hand.

45:37We do not have any. All right. So, this

45:39says uh motion to uh disapprove has been

45:44passed.

45:50All right, Ryan. With that said, I guess

45:52that finishes the new business. We'll

45:55move to your report.

45:57>> Uh Mr. Chairman, just um welcome again

46:00Mr. Goodson to the board. Uh, thank you

46:03all for your service.

46:05Look, look forward to having you here

46:06again next month. I'm sure we'll have

46:08some some items next month. I know we

46:10have at least an item that will be

46:11considered at your October meeting. So,

46:14um, at least it's slated for. Obviously,

46:16things can change, but that's uh we do

46:18anticipate a meeting and um, thank you

46:21for what y'all do.

46:23>> All right. Thank you, Mr. King.

46:24>> Thank you.

46:25>> Uh, sorry for the little word scramble

46:27there, guys, but we'll get that

46:28tightened up next meeting. Uh,

46:31>> do we have a motion to adjurnn?

46:33>> Make a motion.

46:34>> Motion.

46:34>> I'll second it. Grace is on that. All

46:36right. We will signify by raising our

46:38right hand for adjournment.

46:40>> Who's the second?

46:42>> I did.

46:43>> Yeah, Nick. Nick was on it.

46:44>> Grace was

46:45>> Grace was the

46:46>> That was clear.

46:48>> I'm [laughter] ready to roll.

46:50>> All right. Well, we will adjourn uh this

46:53meeting and we'll see you next month.

46:55Thank

```*