Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to call to order this meeting. We have a quorum, so please stand for the pledge.

My allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right.

All right. First item for tonight is approval of the minutes from the May 18, 2026 planning board meeting. The purpose of this agenda is to ensure the full approval of the meeting minutes from the planning board meeting on May 18, 2026. Everyone had a chance to review. And do I have a motion to approve the May 18, 2026 minutes as presented or amended?

I move they be approved as written. Second.

All in favor? All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Next, we're going to move on to the public hearing section. Public hearings are time for petitioners to present requests and for the public to state their concerns and voice their opinions in favor or opposition of these requests. If you intend to speak, please make sure that you have signed in right there up front. Sign and cheat at the podium. Please clearly state your name, address, and whether you are... for or against the request for record. I'll ask you that when you get up to the podium. Please limit your comments to only three minutes in order for all that wish to speak that can be heard in a timely manner. Also, I want to just lay it out there. This is the planning board meeting, not the town board meeting. we are here for zoning requests and approvals or denials in regards to the zoning of the land this has nothing to do with traffic or anything like that we would like we would like to hear the concerns and the questions that you may or may not have but we also will let you know that we are here to zone the land and that any other comments can be pushed to the town board meeting if possible okay just want to leave that out there we got item 4a uh rez 2026 for further information be provided by the staff

All right, thank you Mr. Chair. I am submitting the agenda abstract and supporting documents. into the official record of the town first public hearing item before you tonight is raz 2026 10. it's a rezoning requested by wayne malden of malden walk-in surveying at 210 southwest street pin number zero six five six eight six seven nine nine four this rezoning is a total of 0.321 acres from the residential medium density to the town center residential zoning district staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning map amendment as it is reasonable and in the best interest of the public for the following reasons number one the requested zoning map amendment is consistent with the 2040 community vision land use plan classification of town center residential number two the requested zoning district supports the lup's policy 2.1 encourage infill development and redevelopment inside town limits number three the requested zoning district supports the lup's policy 4.1 manage future growth and development in accordance with the priority infrastructure investment areas map. And number four, the proposed conditions offered as part of the petition align with the goals of the 2040 LUP and effectively plan for the site's future development potential. The petitioner is here with us tonight and I am also happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you very much. No problem. Do any of the board members have any questions for staff before we open the public hearing? All right. I'd like to open the public hearing up. Eva, do we have anyone sign up to speak for this agenda item?

We have Mr. Wayne Malden on behalf of the applicant.

Wayne, good to see you.

Good evening. How are y'all doing today?

Going good, sir. Going good.

Again, I'm Wayne Mauldin, and I'm for the rezoning. The address is 139 North Main Street here in Fuquaybarina. What we're looking at here is an older home over on the West Street, or I think they call it Southwest Street now. Anyway, it's going to need some major repairs. And I only just wish us to remove it and build something that will look a lot nicer in town, help improve the community in that area. So if any of you got any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer.

Perfect.

Any questions?

Thank you. Thank you. Eva, is there anybody else? There is, sir. OK. At this time, we will close the public hearing. Any comments, concerns from the board? And if not, I will entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I'll motion to recommend approval of REZ-2026-6-10, a zoning map amendment for 210 Southwest Street from the residential medium density zoning district to the town center residential zoning district, as is reasonable in the best interest of the public for the reasons identified by staff.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

All opposed? All right, motion carries. Nolan, at this time, I'd like to, or just go ahead, Nolan, if you would like to, go ahead.

Yeah, at this time, I'm going to ask to recuse myself from agenda item 4B, zoning, yeah, it's got the wrong one, agenda item 4B.

Motion to recuse Nolan from the discussions and actions on the zoning map amendment for Malden, or from Malden Walk and Survey, PA 417 and 419 Raleigh Street, REZ 202611.

I'll make a motion to recuse Nolan.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Our motion carries. And further information provided by the staff.

Thank you. I'm submitting the agenda abstract and supporting documents in the official records of We have received a number of inquiries and significant feedback on this rezoning, so I thought it might be helpful to review the goals of the Town Center Residential District as we get into this. The Town Center Residential District is uniquely situated just outside the downtown areas and provides an eclectic mix of housing types and lot sizes that have developed over decades. With a density cap of ten dwelling units per acre, the lot sizes range from a handful of one acre lots to a few that are less than a tenth of an acre, with the majority falling somewhere in between. Most are single family detached homes. There's also a sprinkling of duplexes in a few town homes. Most of the area classified as town center residential in the land use plan is currently zoned either residential low density, like the lots we're talking about tonight, or residential medium density. Being that the current zoning was applied after many of the homes were built, often the current properties do not meet either the minimum lot size, minimum lot frontage, or setback requirements. Residential low density requires a 14,500 square foot lot that is at least 80 foot wide. 417 and 419 Raleigh Street are both less than 9,000 square feet and neither are close to 80 feet wide. Lots made nonconforming by the adoption of development standards are considered lots of record and permitted to develop one single family home. Since the lot is some standard, applying the required setbacks might be difficult. So the ordinance also provides an opportunity for reduced side and rear setbacks for non-conforming lots of record. Instead of developing as a lot of record, property owners may seek to rezone the property to town center residential. The town center residential district encourages a mix of housing types, as you can see in the chart, and allows for smaller setbacks since the area is slightly more urban. Since you're not permitted to expand a nonconformity, rezoning to town center residential gives existing homeowners more flexibility to expand an existing property to fit their changing needs. Here are some examples of development resulting from the 30 town center residential rezonings that the town has approved since 2016. Before we get into the details of today's zoning request, I do want to also speak to affordability. The town does not have any standards or requirements requiring the affordability of new development, or even has any tool to regulate or measure what expansions or renovations of existing homes due to property values and assessed taxes. Whether properties are maintained, renovated, rented, sold, or even demolished for something new is market driven. The town center residential standards strive to guide development towards a variety of housing options that can be adapted to fit the scale and context of the existing neighborhood while connecting to the fabric of the existing infrastructure. The purpose of this agenda item tonight is to consider a requested zoning map amendment for a total of 0.414 acres located at 417 and 419 Raleigh Street from the residential low density zoning district to the town center residential zoning district. Although traffic impact is now required at rezoning, the engineering director waived the requirement due to the limited scale of the development and resulting negligible traffic impacts. The two required parking spaces per home is being provided in a rear alley loaded garage and additional overflow parking will likely be accommodated in the private alley. The total 0.4 acre development will not trigger storm water requirements because the difference in increased impervious area is so small that the state does not recognize it for permitting. The requested zoning map amendment is consistent with the 2040 community vision land use plan and supports the following LUP policies. 2.1, which encourages infill development and redevelopment inside town limits as a way to reinvest in the existing downtowns and neighborhoods. And policy 4.1, which seeks to manage future growth and development in priority investment areas. In addition, the plot plan and elevations provided demonstrate that the proposed development generally meets the town center residential standards. And the facade conditions offered confirm that the appearance of the proposed homes will contribute to the character of the neighborhood. The suggested motion tonight is recommend approval of REZ 2611, a zoning map amendment for 417 and 419 Raleigh Street, from the residential low density zoning district to the town center residential zoning district, as it is reasonable and in the best interest of the public for the reasons identified by staff. I am available to answer any questions.

Any questions? I'll wait one second. Sorry. Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff before we open up the public hearing? All right. If there are no questions or comments, I will open up the public hearing at this time. Eva, you have people signed up?

Yes, Mr. Wayne Malden. Perfect.

Good evening, Wayne Mallroom again, 139 North Main Street here in Fuqua. We put this rezoning together, as you have before you tonight, for the Pine State Group, and again, I'm for it. Basically, we got kind of the same thing we were looking at before. There's two lots there now that have a duplex on it that is in dire need of some repairs, got some termites and stuff in it. My client wishes to buy it and wants to tear that down rather than try to Rebuild it. And the TRC zone, and I think we'll allow for four lots there, but we backed up the three so that we could build a little nicer project, have a little more room on there. Also, doing the back alley access, we only got one access point, so three or four at that intersection because there was some concerns about the traffic. I'm sure that you're going to hear shortly. But if you've got any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them. Any questions?

No.

All right, thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Eva, you want to go through the list?

Yes. First, Eva, can you let Preston go next? Yes.

If Mr. Preston- Sorry, yeah.

Thank you. Good evening, board and neighbors. My name is Preston Perry at 1994 NC42 here in the town limits of Fuqua, and I'm representing Pine State Property Group and Pine State Construction Group, which are my companies. And I'm here on behalf of this rezoning in support of our request to rezone 417 and 419 Raleigh Street. As staff and Wayne alluded to, this is currently two lots of record parcels with a duplex accompanying both of those. And our request is to, of course, rezone those as proposed to create three single family lots. So throughout this process between neighborhood meetings and then direct feedback from neighbors, we have received quite a bit of feedback, and we appreciate and listen to that as it comes in. I've had the opportunity to respond to many of the neighbors, and in that, we've been able to propose some of these conditional characteristics for the rezoning. So again, we'll go here. We understand why people care about this neighborhood. As a resident of Fuqua, the first house my wife and I purchased when we set out on this journey was on Woodrow Street. It is in the same block that we are proposing this rezoning in. That 1,300 square foot house didn't last very long once the second kid was on the way. And we did not have an opportunity to move into that neighborhood because the product didn't exist. The TCR zoning allows for higher density development in efforts to bring those types of families into our walkable downtown areas. we we are not here to try to change the context of the neighborhood the walkability the character and the quality of the homes in this part of downtown are what drive people to want to live there walking to falcon park walking to the downtown districts being able to take the kids to the old middle school not anymore but being able to walk these areas is the the driving factor and without providing housing for those types of buyers and the need for sustainable and obtainable housing through higher-density rezonings we're not able to achieve that so the question before the board is not whether these two properties will remain unchanged to wayne's point this is a dilapidated duplex significant asbestos termite damage and structural repairs necessary change will have to come in some capacity to this property it's not economically viable to repair it at this point one unit currently sits vacant because it cannot be inhabited The question is whether or not through smart rezoning with conditional restrictions and implementing the anti-monotony and the development standards that we've proposed, we hope that we can provide a product that matches the neighborhood, supports walkability, mitigates traffic concerns, and still provides new housing opportunities for those who wish to live in this neighborhood. So again, our proposal would replace the existing duplex with detached single-family homes. This is not a multifamily proposal or commercial development. These are true single-family detached structures. Each home would have its own two-car garage with access consolidated through a single shared rear alley style drive, removing the current two curb cuts that exist for the existing duplex. This would reduce that to one. and promote access via a single entrance and exit again both of every our proposed elevation here and plan would require rear access to car garages meeting the standard for two parking spaces while we can't control town standards for street parking our design is intended to promote parking in the garages as well as well as the rear alleyway as opposed to street load parking We've received several objections describing three story homes at 5000 plus square feet that just unfortunately were just assumptions. I'm not sure where that was derived, but we have not made any proposals for houses of that size or nature. With that being said, if it is reduced to two lots, then by default the cost of the entitlement works sewer surveys would require larger housing if it were to stay to the conditions we've proposed here. limits the architectural standards, promotes a less obtrusive product, and our architect has worked diligently to design these houses to emulate existing homes in the area. This area is a mix of multifamilies. There's mid-century homes, Cape Cod, traditional two stories, commercial use, all within the same block. TCR promotes mixed types of development and mixed designs. And we think we've done a pretty good job of promoting a house style that complements the area. We've also worked with our surveyor and staff to ensure we're meeting all applicable setbacks and zoning regulations. We've also provided architectural standards that prohibit vinyl siding. and promotes durable exterior cladding such as fiber cement brick stone wood or engineered composite materials each hole must include a front door with blazing and every every elevation that we propose does different from each other to avoid monotony amongst the development and again we've also committed to establishing a street tree in front of every lot And we have committed to adhering to the conceptual elevations that we've provided for review and make sure that the homes are completed are substantially similar in style and feel. Without rezoning, future development of these two existing lots would not necessarily include the same prohibited development factors. Without rezoning, some of these concerns become much more valid. They could go to 40 feet. It could go lot line to lot line. It could go more dense. And we don't feel like that's the right fit for the neighborhood. To Wayne's point, per zoning, we could have gone to four and we took this down to three to ensure that lots felt right for the area and that the product type we're proposing fits the neighborhood. So again, we feel like this is a fair compromise and establish the type of home that fits this downtown district. Again, to staff's point, affordability and gentrification in the areas is not something we can control via rezoning application. But we do also understand that higher density and creating more modest floor plans does promote obtainable housing, and it does provide opportunities for more people to be able to afford and live in the area. While we're not establishing pricing based on a zoning decision, it is certainly fair to assume that if this were to be two lots, the price, size and impact of the development would exceed what it would be if it were three. There's unfortunately basic economics at play where if this were to maintain a two lot subdivision and rezoning were not to happen, then we would proceed with a lot of record development and these would become bigger, taller houses. And we do feel that this product mix is more appropriate for the area. So this application is not an attempt to erase the neighborhood. It's the neighborhood I brought my daughter home from the hospital in. I don't want to change it either. But we do understand that TCR zoning in downtown Fuquay is a place people want to be, and we want to be able to provide that opportunity for them. It is an opportunity to replace the deteriorated structure with three quality single family homes while via conditional rezoning, establishing enforceable standards for material, architecture, landscaping, access, and use type. We respectfully ask the planning board to evaluate the actual application and the conditions we have voluntarily offered. We do believe this is a thoughtful, controlled infill development that can welcome three new families to downtown Fuqua. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions?

I just have a quick question. The visual that we saw of the homes, are those of the style kind of, are those all three or is that going to be like, you're going to kind of go with that sort of look?

We are committed to these being substantially similar to exactly what we proposed to build here. Nice. To the point where our architects already rendered these for us. Nice.

But these are detached.

it looks exactly like three doors that's what i thought it's an architectural thing it's not i'm not the design exactly yeah it's uh correct but they are three single family detached structures yes okay thank you absolutely all right thank you thank you eva yes we have mr eric christopherson if you'll please come forward

And please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Eric Kristofferson. and I live at 504 East Academy Street in Fuquay Verena. I've lived there for 26 years with my wife and I, and we raised our two children there. We also purchased and renovated the Fuquay Springs Teacherage, which we currently own. We walk our dogs and exercise daily on Ennis Street and Raleigh Streets. as do many other residents. Some even come from other neighborhoods to enjoy the sense of place that this neighborhood evokes. And that's really what we're concerned about is that sense of place being altered and that these large homes creep in and change the neighborhood and its sense of place we're not averse to growth and infill we understand the need for missing middle housing and we welcome it but we also want to maintain that sense of place that the neighborhood evokes What is that sense of place? Preston alluded to some of the characteristics and very accurate. In addition, one of the sense of places is the block faces of the homes in this neighborhood. Going from residential low density to town center district, that changes the front property line offset from 30 feet to 10 feet. At least in this case, that's a drastic change and definitely is way out of character for the neighborhood and it's unprecedented. So we oppose that aspect of the site plan. The LUP, the land use plan itself, states front and side yard setbacks are variable based on lot size, but should be generally consistent along faces to provide streetscape continuity. This proposed plot plan is not consistent at all with anything in the neighborhood. So it places the buildings too close to the street And it would be better if the buildings were moved back to 20 or 30 feet off of the street to stay in character with the neighborhood. Also, another part of sets of places, Walking around on Raleigh Street and Ennis Street, you see a lot of pedestrians pushing strollers, walking dogs, couples walking. It really is a wonderful walking neighborhood. And one of our fears is that we start to see parking on Raleigh Street. Right now, if you look up and down Raleigh Street, you'll see no cars parked on Raleigh Street, unless it's Amazon or something, a delivery, or perhaps a visitor. But no residents. Park on Raleigh Street. They all have driveways and they all park in those driveways. I understand that there's a driveway on this plot plan, but I'm concerned about the ease of using it by the occupants of these homes. It's very tight. I've looked at other row houses in the town and there are four row houses at the corner of Pine and Dickens Street that have an alleyway behind them with what looks like a one or two car garage, but there's a pad between that access, that driveway access and the home that allows residents to park on that pad. So I would ask Pine State Preston to consider the size of that pad and ensure that it allows two vehicles to park on that pad and not block the alleyway or the driveway. If occupants start to park on Raleigh Street, that really does affect the walkability of that street because there is traffic, car traffic, auto traffic, mixing in with pedestrian traffic as well. This would create a public safety hazard. Also, the square footage and affordability of the homes. We can't tell what the square footage is from the plot plan or the renderings, but it looks like the footprint is 2,165 square feet, two stories, that's 4,333 and 30 square feet. That's a large home, okay? This neighborhood, we don't want homes that large in this neighborhood, really. And I understand that Pine State has pared back from four to three, but we're asking for the size of these homes to be scaled back. So I guess in summary, the town's website States that the LUP is a living document meant to be revisited and amended as necessary as the community moves forward in growth. Many of us feel that the TCR dimensions, I'm sorry, TRC dimensions and standards are overly generous to development at the expense of the neighborhood's existing character and sense of place. Let's take smaller steps to control the growth and the neighborhood character while achieving infill and missing middle housing. Those are my comments.

All right.

Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Yeah.

Eva, we got next.

Yes, we have Mr. Paul Hodge, if you'll please come forward.

Yes, I will say when the timer goes off, if you can remember the timer goes off, just kind of wrap it up whenever the three minute timer goes off, if you don't mind. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. All right. Name and address, please, for the record.

Oh, yeah, my name is Paul Hodge, and I live at 505 Raleigh Street. All right, good evening. So as I mentioned, my name is Paul. I just want to say that I'm not opposed to development in the neighborhood. I think you can build a beautiful home and do it correctly. I'm not opposed to TCR zoning. But I do have some concerns with, you know, code compliance doesn't always necessarily reflect what happens in the daily lives of the neighborhood. So just hear me out here. So Eric stole my thunder, but parking. We've seen similar homes built like this in the neighborhood. Love my new neighbors, but unfortunately, they do not use their garages for parking. Similar flavor to what Eric was saying, I do have a lot of concerns with that space between the alleyway and where the garage begins for that reason. I would like to see that be a dimension such that you can park two vehicles side by side, not interfere with the alleyway, in case someone chooses not to use their garage for parking, as Mr. Preston here intends. Unfortunately, if this isn't the case, the only conclusion is that vehicles will spill onto Raleigh and Ennis Street and cause the neighborhood to be significantly less walkable than it is today. So I would like the planning board to consider that. Talking about vehicles spilling onto Raleigh and Ennis, a little bit on public safety here. So Raleigh Street's only about 20 foot wide. When cars are parked along the roadway, it really reduces visibility. And this intersection has become increasingly more dangerous. Mr. Perry actually brought 10 additional children to the neighborhood via his recent development, which we love. However, we want to keep that neighborhood safe for those children, right? My last point here is for stormwater management. I know it was brought up earlier in the call, in the meeting here. I understand that it doesn't trigger a formal review of stormwater management in this case because it doesn't meet those expectations. However, I do want to say that a small thing does add up. Personally, I did experience a situation where the town was redoing some sewer lines and water lines. The contractor blocked one of the culverts and during both, two instances actually, had a large water main leak upstream on Clifton. that spilled down saturated my neighbor's yard caused damage in his home and flooded our crawl space up to a foot this occurred once again during a tropical storm as well so luckily the new development they did clear that area it's no longer a problem for me but one small example of how one decision can cause some significant impacts for both homeowners and existing infrastructure So in closing, I wanna just say that I live here, and I experience these things downtown. I'm not asking for the town to stop development, and I'm just asking that it be carried out responsibly. And the neighborhood shares those concerns. There's about 160 folks that also have these concerns.

Thank you, appreciate it. Eva, who do you got next?

Yes, we have Mr. Shander Dupal, if you'll please come forward. Miss, sorry. If you'll please state your address and if you're in favor or opposition.

Hello, my name is Shanda Dupal. I live at 413 Raleigh Street. I am opposed to the current plan as set forward by Pine State. Both my neighbors who spoke prior spoke to many of the things that I and the rest of my community is concerned about. I moved to Fuquay 22 years ago from Raleigh and moved there specifically because I enjoy, I look for, I like that small town, close community. Everybody's involved with the downtown. It's very... And my concern is that these types of infills will take away from that. But specifically, my home is next door to this particular proposed development, and the setback was already spoken for in terms of the front of the houses. Beside the house, the proposed setback is five, five and a half feet from my property line, um blocks a fair amount of light visibility and privacy that is now afforded for myself and my neighbors because of distance from the deflects that's there now and a row of really well-established great myrtle trees which bloom and have a lot of foliage and It provides a lot of privacy, a lot of beauty for myself, for my neighbors, for the neighborhood. So personally, I would ask that while we are asking for a downsize or a reduction of this type of development, again, as my neighbors expressed, I am not opposed to the type of growth and development and revitalization that every small town wants to see happen but i would like to see scaled down versions of these houses in terms of square footage in terms of height i know they said it wasn't a three-story home looks like a three-story home at the very least it's two and a half it's very tall and to consider the distance between my property line and the beginning of that first building if they could consider expanding that, keeping some greenway or some sort of privacy barrier, I would prefer the trees versus a fence, but whichever, that it would be where I would stand in terms of the overall feel of the property. Again, not opposed to development in and of itself, but would like to see it be kept controlled and responsible and in keeping with the feel of our neighborhood, which we who have been here for many, many years and people who have recently moved in chose this area because of that community. And I would personally hate to see that altered irreparably.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. I do have a quick question. Preston, do you mind? Sure. Actually, a quick question. I mean, everyone keeps bringing up the square footage of these homes. So I'm just curious on what that is. Do you have a range of where you've been thinking right now?

I do. Before I speak.

Preston, can you come back up to the podium? Sure. Yeah, thank you.

Preston Perry, Pine State Construction Group.

I'm sorry to put you on the spot. No, you're fine.

I just don't want to misspeak. So these are new. While this is not submitted as a condition for the rezoning, the proposal that we are working with currently, which matches the provided sample elevations, consists of a mean roof height of 30 feet and a proposed condition square footage Proposed condition square footage of 3,015 square feet.

Thank you, sir.

There are.

Thank you very much. Absolutely. Yep. Yep. That works. Thank you. All right. Anyone else?

Yes. We have Mr. Jim Hunsberger. If you'll please come forward. Thank you.

Hi, everybody. I'm Jim Hunsberger, 508 East Academy Street. I've lived in Fuquay over 30 years. My wife's lived here for 40 years, and we've lived in and around historic Fuquay as this neighborhood. We kind of refer to it as the historic fringe. It's kind of our sort of self-appointed moniker for our neighborhood because we're not quite in the historic district, right? But in our neighborhood, which is largely intact, given the growth and the expansion of our population and changes to development within our community. So one of the key things about our community is the intactness of this historic fringe neighborhood. It's a variety of types of homes. Preston's referred to it as have Eric and Sean. But the thing is that, fit is important to a neighborhood where the average age of the homes is over 70 years old in our neighborhood. So it's a challenge from a development standpoint. Modern construction standards don't necessarily make that an easy thing to do. But for us, it's critical because it's our home, it's where we live, our largest single investment in our lives will be our homes. And we are quite happy with our homes in our neighborhood. It's quite unique. I'm going to skip over a lot of the things that I had to talk about because most of those things have been addressed by my other neighbors. But one thing I did want to point out is one of the reasons for my opposition has to do with The average Florida lot ratio of this proposed development compared to the average Florida lot ratio of homes in our neighborhood. So the average is around 13 to 15%. I mean, I did a survey of, close survey of 34 homes surrounding 417 and 419, 34 homes. It's a little bit higher than that, but if I expand it out to the greater neighborhood of our historic fringe, it gets down to around 13%. This Florida lot ratio is more than triple the size of the average FAR in our neighborhood from my calculations. The other element that I wanted to kind of allude to is green space. So I'm lucky where I live, I have a lot of old trees, a lot of large trees, cost us a lot of money to maintain them, but they are gorgeous, they're irreplaceable, and they've been here long before i lived here and they are essential to the health of our of our yards and they are essential to the health in established wildlife that uses our trees but more importantly the shade the hvac bills that are kept Reasonable as opposed to I'm sure people that live in new subdivisions where they have little stick trees in their front yard They aren't getting the benefits of the tree canopy provides a shade in our neighborhood. It's a significant shade and And so that's an important consideration so I will close real quickly here. Oh, I am out of time I was just going to cite specific elements of the TCR plan that are specifically are specifically in contradiction to the proposed plan. Real quick, I'll just say preserving the character of existing homes in stable neighborhoods is a high priority. Type, size, and orientation and character of new homes built in existing neighborhoods should be compatible with adjacent properties and supporting infrastructure. Buildings should be relatively small in scale and intensity. Residential buildings, regardless of the number of the dwelling units, should be designed to complement existing single-family homes and detached homes in the area. And that's all from the land use plan, the 2040 land use plan. So I personally don't see those elements included in this plan, and I would like them to be given some consideration. I wish I was an architect that could design stuff. I might be able to provide some options. But as someone else has said, not opposed to development, not opposed to infill. Understand fully that what's there is not viable residence. And that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Eva?

Yes, we have Mr. David Shaw. If you'd please come forward. Okay, he's waived. So we're moving on to the next is Mara. I can't make out the last name. If you'll please state your name and address for the record. Thank you.

hi i'm mark marini shoemake 302 east academy street and 403 raleigh street these houses are old girls um they're likely to be torn down one of these days um that's a fact i know that um they're in okay shape they're in good shape um I understand the this will probably the TCR thing is the way of the future and that you guys are protecting um Dukeway trying to expand the economics things I don't understand and I appreciate that and I think the zoning will go through um I'm here just to speak about the actual plans These houses are past the ketchup close. I mean, if I run out of ketchup and I want some from my neighbor, I don't need to go next door, just open a window. They're too close. They're too close to the street. They're not pretty. Please don't do that. um please rethink it and i understand that there's a concern about the cost of land but the houses that are being built elsewhere are still comparable in price to the tax value the tax base um i ask that um There's some consideration for the aesthetics just because it's not pretty, but that's a wish. I'm concerned about the economics taking away affordable housing. I'm not talking about attainable. I mean affordable housing and knocking them down and building attainable housing, which is supposed to be up to $460,000. Attainable housing for the quote missing middle is still $90,000 down. I'm not sure who can afford that. That's not middle class. That's not missing middle. But that's the way that economically it has decided that that's missing metal. Meanwhile, even quote, across the tracks where there's attainable housing, they're knocking down affordable housing and building attainable housing, which is still unaffordable. to the worker bee. Worker bees have no place to go. I'm talking about the nurses' aides, the people who take care of us, the people who provide essential services. I wonder, this does not have to do with this particular project, but I ask you guys to please consider the worker bees. There is no place for them to live. I had to help someone to find affordable housing. There's nothing. I have 20 seconds left. The last thing I have to ask is, my name is Mara Marini Shoemake. Will you please ask these people to stop calling me about selling my house? I get six calls a day. My daughter gets six calls a day. We don't answer the calls for teachers, for doctors, for dentists. I've answered the call for the bank saying, please leave me alone. They're like, fine. Okay? Thank you.

Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Eva?

Yes, we have Mr. Ronald Meyer. Could you please come forward?

I'm Ronald Meyer, 104 Parker Drive. I live on Parker, on the corner of Riley and Parker. The Van Canons have tore their house down, built a new house, a lot more concrete. They sold this partial lot to their son, more concrete. The amount of water that flows through my property now because of those two projects is substantial. This thing is going to be nothing but concrete all the way across the back. Where is all that water going to go? It's going to flood down Riley Road. And all the properties down below it are going to take all that water. That's something that needs to be considered. Pintzer built four houses across the street on the opposite corner. There isn't one of them four houses where they are parking in that garage. Not one of them. People do not park in their garages as a general rule. They store stuff in that garage. So where are those cars going to wind up? On that street, and they're right on the corner. So those cars are gonna be right on that corner when people try to come around that corner. This can be very dangerous from a public safety standpoint. And the speed limit on that road is 35 miles an hour. And you know as well as I do, if it's 35, they're not doing 35, a lot of them. So that's another concern. That's my concerns about that project right there, is all the concrete, not enough water, such a shed for that property, because I'm dealing with it personally. And if you look at Raleigh Road, it goes downhill from there. So all the people downhill are going to be suffering from that watershed. That's all I got to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

Yes, Chair. We have Laurie Chamberlain, if you'll please come forward.

Good evening, my name is Laurie Chamberlain. I live at 404 Wade Street in downtown. I'm gonna skip most of what I had to say because everybody's already said pretty much what I have to say. But I do wanna just point out that there are a lot of people here that are opposed. that are not speaking to this development. Just like everybody else, I'm not opposed to change or to the TCR zoning. What I'm asking is that you consider the setbacks. As somebody's mentioned before, the houses on that street or in our neighborhood are 20 to 30 foot. Putting homes at 10 foot, it just doesn't, it's not in keeping with the neighborhood. Also, I read somewhere in the sidewalk plan that Raleigh Street was considered, I believe, like phase two, so it will eventually be part of the landscaping and maybe get sidewalks. If we have houses at 10 foot setbacks, what is that gonna do when they put the sidewalks in? Is it gonna shorten that and make it look a little worse than it already looks? My other concern is just the potential for attainable homes. And I understand the builder is saying that if we require him to have two houses, then he's gonna make them huge and more expensive. But that's not necessarily the reason for us not to ask for these homes to be more in keeping with the neighborhood. In our neighborhood, the homes are not 3,000, 4,000 square foot. Well, the four he built earlier are, but the other ones are not. And so I would just ask that you guys consider the people who have lived here and invested a lot of money. And we're just trying to keep our neighborhood have that same feel. We can do it. He can do it without 10 foot setbacks if we just give us a little more space. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Eva?

Yes, Mr. Chair. We have no one else signed up.

No one else? Does anyone else like to come up and speak before we close the public hearing, bring it back to the board? All right. Well, appreciate everybody. I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Questions?

I got a question. This is for you, Preston, actually. Is it feasible to do the 30-foot setbacks or 20-foot setbacks? Or would that cause you to have just two lots then? Or how does that affect your plan?

To establish a 30-foot front setback would mitigate any ability to do rear alley and controlled parking. I can't speak for planning and engineering, but if anything, I think that would result in more parking. Exactly. Yeah. But as shown on our flat, This rezoning does also include right-of-way dedication. There is a five-foot right-of-way dedication that is in place, and the preliminary submittal has, from the new line, setbacks between 12 1⁄2 and 13 feet. So when we're accounting for five-foot right-of-way plus the setback, we're a little closer to that number than 10 foot from the property line.

Yes.

I can just add some clarification to that. The standards for a row home construction requires the rear alley. So one of the reasons you normally see the 20 or 30 feet is because it is required if you have a front driveway to have 20 feet basically right for the cars. But this form of development requires the rear alley. also it appears just by eyeballing it right now the right-of-way line in the front there along Raleigh Street is about 14 feet from the edge right there's 14 feet of grass in the right-of-way so with an added I mean that makes it about 19 feet with the additional right-of-way so it's 19 feet of grass plus at the smallest lot 3 there's 12 and a half feet so I mean we're getting really close to close to 30 visually visually close to 30

Yeah. Okay. Any other questions, comments, concerns?

Question for staff about the stormwater. So did we hear at the beginning that this was engineering waived the need for stormwater?

So the standards, this is only a 0.4 acre lot, so this doesn't trigger stormwater requirements. Even from the, obviously we're authorized via the state, and the state feels that the difference in impervious between what it is today and what it's going to be does not warrant additional stormwater. Now obviously if there became a drainage problem, town staff would address it with the development.

I have a question just about the speed limit being 35. Is that more of a town question for speed limit, things like that? Like changes to speed limit, or is that more of a... Right, I believe these are town streets, so yeah, that would be... Something for the town if they wanted to...

I think that's the town wide speed limit is 35.

And then trees, obviously the trees, right? We always get a lot about the trees in this development. I know that there's, you know, we have no real true quote unquote requirements, if that makes any sense. There has to be some there. But in this development, what is there? I mean, what are the ideas for the trees?

Anything about like any landscape or anything like that in this requirements for this sort of right so residential Development we are not allowed to require foundation planting or trees or anything like that I mean obviously the street tree requirement is one thing but they have specifically conditioned on that each of these three lots will have a street tree. So you can also see in the top left corner, this is not an essentially wooded lot currently today. There's a lot of woods right next to it, but this lot in itself does have some crepe myrtles, but it does not appear to have any significant heritage choice or anything.

Correct. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right. At this time, I would like to close the public hearing, bring it back to the board, like I said. And if there are no questions or comments for the staff, I will entertain a motion.

We've heard a lot of interesting points tonight. But I do look back at looking at our goals and our land use plan and listening to what we did, what we could potentially have developed on this lot versus what we're facing with today. I think that this would be the best development overall for this area. I understand that unfortunately we can't build homes to look like they were 70 years old or to match the neighborhood exactly, but I do think that these size homes and these frontage of homes will help blend in, it will invite people that are looking to live closer into downtown for more walkability and wanna live in a closer knit community like this, this will offer that. And so I am willing to make a motion to approve this unless there's other information from other board members that they would like to share.

All right, second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right, motion carries. I'm going to welcome back Nolan to the planning board meeting. And we will continue with item 4C, REZ 2026-12. Further information to be provided by staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Did you want to give a minute? You good, Barbara?

We got her.

Good. All right. Just for the benefit of Eva's recording. Yes. Thank you. No problem. All right. So I am submitting the agenda abstract and supporting documents into the official record of the town. The third public hearing item before you tonight is REZ 2026-12. It is a rezoning requested by Samson Bladen Oil Company Incorporated at 2201, 2205, and a portion of 2221 Piney Grove Wilbon Road. These are pins 0647825346, 0647825183, and a portion of 0647725066. This rezoning is a total of 4.591 acres from the neighborhood commercial and residential agricultural zoning districts to the general commercial conditional zoning district and a corresponding land use plan amendment from the neighborhood commercial classification to the suburban commercial classification. Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning map amendment as it is reasonable and in the best interest of the public for the following reasons. Number one, although the requested zoning map amendment is not consistent with the 2040 community vision land use plans classification of neighborhood commercial, The petitioner has opted to request a change of the land use plan to suburban commercial, which is compatible with the proposed zoning change. Number two, the requested zoning district supports the LUP's policy 2.6, encourage commercial development. Number three, the requested zoning district supports the LUP's policy 4.1, manage future growth and development in accordance with the priority infrastructure investment areas map. And number four, the proposed conditions offered as part of the petition align with the goals of the 2040 land use plan and effectively plan for the site's future development potential. Petitioner's here this evening and I am also available to answer your questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Mm-hm. I would like to open up the public hearing. Eva, would anyone want to sign up?

Yes, Mr. John Adcock.

Good evening, Chairman Johnson, members of the board. My name is John Adcock, the Adcock Law Firm at 202 East Academy Street. I represent the applicant and the property owner regarding this matter. Basically, this is an application for rezoning that will allow an existing convenience store that's in a structure that was built in the 1950s to be replaced with a modern convenience store that will provide the retail sales of gas and fuel. Property, the existing store lot is zoned neighborhood commercial, as staff pointed out. Neighborhood commercial does not allow, as a permitted use, a gas station. So if it did, we would just seek to expand that existing zoning. uh... both the neighbor commercial in general commercial general commercial zoning districts have includes similar permit uses but as i stated gas a gas station is not one of them and general commercial zoning is identified land use plan is a zoning district that is not supported by the neighborhood commercial land use classification. We've got neighborhood commercial zoning, we've got neighborhood commercial land use classification. But the GC zoning is identified as consistent with suburban commercial land use classification. So that's the reason for the land use amendment. It's just to allow for the replacement of its existing convenience store with a modern facility that will include retail sales of gas. We did hold a neighborhood meeting, which included notice to the Prescott Downs Homeowners Association. No one attended the meeting. I did receive an email after the meeting from a resident of Prescott Downs inquiring about whether or not the project would be fenced in. I replied to that later that day, or the next day, stating that that was not the plan. And I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Perfect. Well, thank you. Any questions for applicants?

So is this just a result of old land use when we updated the land use plan, we have new land use districts and this one didn't get aligned with the appropriate land use?

So a couple things at play. So one, the neighborhood commercial has been on there forever, right? The other thing is we actually, I don't know if you guys remember, but a couple years ago we created a gas station use. We didn't have that before. It used to be a C-store with gas kiosks. And so when we created that gas station use, we felt it fit in the general commercial. So this is sort of playing catch up with the current permitted use tables. Okay.

I have one question. The little piece that's hanging out that abuts to Prescott, that's not necessarily going to be people going to that section of it, abutting a neighborhood. It's more excess land.

Yeah, I failed to mention that this project will not be utilizing public sewer. It's almost a mile away. And the cost of it just prohibits doing that. The reason this lot has been remapped, and it's rather large for the use, is because there is going to be an on-site septic system, and there has to be a repair field. And I don't have the site plan available, but it is under review with the town. And the area to the south, towards Prescott, is where the septic repair field will be located, as the site plan exists today. The store is pushed up to the intersection.

Thank you for that. Good question. I was like, that's a big store. thank you thank you appreciate it all right all right we all close the public hearing and we will there are no more questions for staff anyone I will entertain a motion

Mister chair, I'll move to recommend approval of our easy that's 2026 that's 12 is any map a minute for 2201 20 to 5, a portion of 20 to 21 point group will Monroe from the neighborhood commercial and residential agricultural zoning districts. The general commercial conditional zoning district and the course by land use plan amendment from the neighborhood commercial classification to the suburban commercial classification as it is reasonable in the best interest of the public for the reasons identified by staff.

Long favor. Second. All opposed. All right. Motion carries. All right. Item for D are easy 2025 dash 18 for the information provided by staff.

Back.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am submitting the agenda abstract and supporting documents into the official record of the town. The last public hearing item before each tonight is RAZ 202518. It is a rezoning requested by MI Homes of Raleigh LLC at 06921 and a portion of 6823 Sunset Lake Road. These are pins 0667675, I'm sorry, 4582. 0667681140 and a portion of 0667589880. This rezoning is a total of 27.63 acres from the residential medium density conditional zoning district to the planned unit development zoning district. Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning map amendment as it is reasonable and in the best interest of the public for the following reasons. Number one, the requested zoning district supports land use plans policy 3.1, create a comprehensive, connected, and continuous network of green space. Number two, the requested zoning district supports land use plan policy 7.1, establish a discernible neighborhood structure. Number three, the requested zoning district supports the land use plan policy 7.2, encourage transitional uses and intensities in and around project boundaries. And number four, the master plan and narrative included with the request ensure the future uses fit into the development context and demonstrate compliance with the zoning conditions offered and many goals of the 2040 land use plan. Petitioner is also here tonight, and I am happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? Before we open a public hearing? All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Eva?

I have a question about the site of the mall.

You want to sign up for this one? Sure. And in the meantime, we do have John Adcock.

Thank you, Eva. John, we're good.

Mr. Chair, good evening again. John Adcock, the Adcock Law Firm. I represent the applicant that's rezoning. And the applicant's representative is here. He's going to address some questions, if you have questions. I just want to point out a couple of things regarding this master plan community. The density is at 1.77 units per acre. The allowable density is six units per acre. So this project's proposed to be about 30% of what the HUD standards allow for. Also point out that the provision of open space is required to be around 25%, and this project exceeds that to 42%. And one more issue I want to raise quickly is the pond. The existing pond there, as pointed out in the staff report, did receive a notice of violation. It's considered a high-hazard dam. And this project will include removing that pond or draining that pond, which I think will be a huge public safety plus for the community, and especially Valentine Dairy Road. And the applicant's here, and I'm glad he's going to speak. Juan.

Thank you. Please give your name and address, please.

Hello, my name is Juan Montes. I'm Director of Land Autonomous for My Homes, 1511 Sunday Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina. I'm not going to take up a lot of your time. I appreciate everyone. Like John said, we do think this project brings a lot of good things to this neighborhood if it's the land use plan. Pam, thank you and your staff for working so diligently with us. And I'm simply here to answer any questions and introduce myself as kind of the face of this project if you do have any questions. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right.

Eva?

Yes, Mr. Chair. We have Mr. David Shaw. If you'll please come forward.

All right. Good evening. I live in Ballantyne subdivision. I'm at the end of the coal sack. I stay on the berm. I look directly down where this property will be. As a long-time resident of Fuqua Arena, and I travel that road on a regular basis, this site is going to choke the road to the point it's impossible to operate on. I mean, I understand there has to be growth in Fuqua. I'm in the industry. I deal with builders all day long. I'm in the construction industry. But right now, as it stands, Sunset Lake Road cannot sustain this kind of traffic. up to Hilltop-Needmore Road, the whole way down to Fuquay-Vrina, where the Harris Teeter is. Traffic backs down across that bridge on the best of days. So growth has to happen. Unless we can develop the infrastructure to support this, this is not smart growth for Fuquay. Just cut and dry it isn't. There's already a great deal of frustration in our part of the town anyway over the conditions as they are now. That there's been no forethought put into the infrastructure of this town. When I moved into the subdivision 25 years ago, the plan at the time was that that was going to be a parkway. So we were told between Holly Springs Road and Fuquay. That never developed. The bridge was never fully developed at the bottom of the hill across Terrible Creek. And the bridge across Sunset Lake at the Estates has never been fully developed to sustain this kind of road, this kind of traffic on the road. So for what it's worth, yes, I encourage growth and smart growth, of course. And I know from firsthand there's a housing shortage in the country. And affordable housing especially is hard to come by. But right now, this is just going to aggravate an already impossible situation for the morning commute and the afternoon commute as it is right now. That's just the fact of life. Unless there's a plan to avert traffic, develop roads in a way I'm not aware of, this is not a good plan. And it's just going to lead to a lot of frustration of the people who are already there and dealing with this day in and day out. It's not going to get better. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate that.

All right. Eva?

We do not have anyone else.

All right. At this time, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Any questions, comments, concerns for staff?

I have a question for staff. In the submittal, it talks about the traffic study and the trip generation letter. Can you explain that?

Quick.

And just to be clear, along Sunset Lake, the CTP is designated as a 9.4.1. That's a 110-foot four-lane median divided road. So this subdivision will be responsible for half, right, 55 feet from center line over. In addition, you can see in the image, they're also putting in an XL diesel lane in addition to that. So they will be constructing half of that road section on their side of the road. right now this subdivision is is just about at the finish line for preliminary subdivision plan that is something that staff has highly recommended to do them concurrently so this master plan that you're seeing has already been vetted through engineering utilities and all those departments so But yes, this is over the threshold. We have 24 lots, 24 lots, 25 lots is the threshold for those that are infill subdivisions that can be exempt from that. This does not qualify for that. So they will be doing improvements both on the frontage along Valentine Dairy Road as well as Sunset Lake.

And do we know if any of these improvements, did DOT enforce any improvements at the intersection of this new development of Sunset Lake Road? Is that going to be signalized or blocking left turns or anything?

I don't believe so. I was looking just to see what our statement was for the TIA. So it does say the trip generation letter. So this did not trigger a TIA, right? They qualified for the trip generation letter. And again, it justified that the traffic impact analysis was not warranted. So they're not required to do any improvements to the intersections based on that. Now, remember too, Randall Farms is going in just to the south. So the benefits are is Randall Farms will also be making improvements to both Ballantyne Dairy and Sunset Lake along that frontage. So there will be a significant length of the road that is going to be improved on the west side of the road to those CTP standards.

I forget the Sunset Plus one. Did they have sidewalks coming down the west side?

Randall Farms. Yeah, or Randall Farms. Yeah, they did, right? Okay. Yep. Both of them will be putting in pedestrian accommodations along with those road improvements.

Along the road all the way down. Okay. Nice.

This is sometimes it's going to take the growth to get the improvements that we need along the roadways. Yeah.

That's how it works. Okay. Any questions, comments, or concerns for staff? And if not, I will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval of REZ 2025-18, a zoning map amendment for 06921 and a portion of 6823 Sunset Lake Road from the residential medium density conditional zoning district to the planned unit development zoning district as it is reasonable and in the best interest of the public for the reasons identified by staff.

Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? All right, motion carries. Moving on to Planning Staff Report Item 6A, Planning Staff Report. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive information on the disposition of the Planning Board's recommendation to the town as of May 18, 2026. Any questions, concerns from staff? All right. If not. All right. Second. Second. All in favor. Aye. We're out of here.