Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

I've been asleep, but I think we have got it together now after the delay. Good evening, everyone. My name is Mary Skeens, and I'd like to welcome you to our meeting.

Recording and program. Good evening. Please be seated.

Please note that this meeting is being conducted in person and online. If anyone participating online needs help with Zoom, please email staff at zoningadministration at greensboro-nc.gov. Members of the Commission are appointed by City Council and we do serve without pay. The Commission reviews all original zoning, annexation cases, and rezoning requests for the City of Greensboro, and each Commissioner normally visits each site prior to this meeting. The procedure that we'll use for all of our public hearings is as follows. Planning staff will present the background information and make a recommendation. The applicant will present a short summary on how he or she communicated with the neighborhood and why the request is reasonable. Other persons in favor of the request may speak for a total of 10 minutes. This time is shared with the applicant. Speakers opposed to the request will share ten minutes of speaking time. Those in favor of the request will then share five minutes of rebuttal time. And those in opposition to the request will then have five minutes of rebuttal time. At the end of the speaking time, we will close the public hearing. Any Commission member may ask questions once a presenter has completed their presentation. And all Commissioners are required to vote unless they have a conflict of interest. In an effort to run the meeting more efficiently, the Commission may reorganize the meeting agenda. Cases in which no opposition has been expressed to the Planning Department or in which no speakers have signed up to speak in opposition and in which Commission members do not think it necessitates any in-depth discussion will be moved to the top of the agenda. That will proceed with the staff providing a shortened presentation for these expedited cases and the applicants, if desired, will have two minutes to address the Commission to provide any additional information they want the Commission to know. Expedited cases will then be discussed and voted on by the Commission. When speaking here tonight, please direct all questions and comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission, not to staff. The Commission will ask staff to comment on questions if necessary. When a case is called that you're interested in, Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. If you're participating online, please find the raise hand function under the reaction button. You will be called upon to speak in the order in which the hands were raised. All approved and or denied cases receiving six or more votes will constitute final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within ten days. All cases receiving a majority of votes but less than six will be subject to a public hearing by the City Council. All cases involving an annexation are also subject to final approval by City Council. Participants in the Zoom meeting will be able to view the meeting and speak when they're called upon. This meeting is being recorded and televised on Greensboro Television Network and in addition the telecast is being closed captioned for the hearing impaired. Now we will hear from our attorney regarding additional items that we need to consider.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening, everyone. For those that I haven't met yet that are here, my name is Adam Zebsa, and I'm an associate city attorney, and I will be the main attorney supporting the Planning Commission moving forward. And even though I might be a little bit taller, I recognize that Brent has left big shoes for me to fill. As a reminder for those in attendance, much of the Commission's work relates to zoning and rezoning requests. When the Commission hears these matters, its actions should be based on broad public policy considerations and various factors, including the possible uses allowed in a specific zoning designation, as well as any conditions proposed by the applicant. That said, while impacts on public infrastructure may be relevant to consider, it is important to recognize that the Commission does not determine all details of a proposed development. If a specific detail can be considered, like the impacts on traffic, the Commission will do so. Otherwise, many site-specific details, like the impact on stormwater, are evaluated by the Technical Review Committee and other forums instead. Lastly, concerns that are not related to land use should not be considered by the Commission. For example, general concerns about crime rates or who may live in or otherwise own a property are not for the Commission's consideration. If questions come up about matters not being heard this evening, those may be referred to the planning department or city staff after the meeting. And thank you for your time, Madam Chair.

Thank you. We have an acknowledgement of absence. Erica Glass will not be able to join us tonight. Otherwise, we are all here. We have the minutes from the July 20th meeting. Do I hear a motion?

Commissioner Keith Peterson, I make a motion we approve meeting minutes from July 20th, 2026.

I second. However, it's subject to a very small number of non-substantive cleanup items, some names misspelled and words missing and stuff like that, which I won't take up time to go through all that. I'll just direct those comments directly to staff. So, seconded.

So the motion is approval as future amendments? Yes, non-substantive. Non-substantive future changes. Okay. All in favor of approving the minutes?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Withdrawals or continuance? Mr. Parkland.

Yes, thank you, Chair Skeen. So we have two cases this evening that are not going to be able to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission due to insufficiencies with their applications. The first is case Z-2608007, 2308 and 2316 Fleming Road. That case has an associated unified development plan that has not yet been approved by our Technical Review Committee, so it cannot be heard this evening. The other case is Z-26-08-011, and that's for 1411 Pisgah Church Road. Similarly, we have an issue where that unified development plan has not yet been approved by our technical staff, so that cannot be heard by the commission this evening. So you do not need to take any action on either of those items. Separately from that, we have a request by the applicant for case Z-26-08-011. 08009 and PLP 2631 for 4001 and 4005 South Elm Eugene Street to be continued to the September meeting. And I'll let the applicants go to that.

All right. Just to repeat that, the items, there's three items that are on the agenda that we will not be hearing tonight. And that is 4001 and 4005 South Elm Eugene, 2308 and 2316 Fleming. and 1411 Pisgah Church.

So, Chair Stans, do you want to hear from the applicant about the continuance for 4001 and 4005 South Elm Eugene? Because the Commission will have to vote on that one.

That's okay. Thank you. On the South Elm Eugene, is the applicant here to address the continuance request?

madam chair and members of the commission my name is nick blackwood 804 green valley road in greensboro we're requesting the continuance just to allow for additional time to meet with neighbors and have some discussions about the project that's all no no other reason outside of just neighborhood communication any questions of mr blackwood we'll need a motion on this on this will be a continuance to the september 23rd meeting

Which is a Wednesday, not a Monday.

Yes, that is correct. Wednesday, September 23rd.

Okay. Madam Chair. Has there been a checking? There's any opposition to the request first?

No, we have not done that. Is there anyone opposed to this continuance? Seeing none, now we can vote on the continuance.

I make my motion to approve the continuance.

And I second, Stu Nichols. What was the question, Ms. Turner? I'm sorry.

It probably wouldn't hurt to have in the motion, yes.

So we have a motion by Ms. Turner, and I believe it was a second, to grant the continuance. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Now, based on what we have received at this point, both online and physical people signing up, I'm going to call out the addresses of the cases that will be expedited, meaning we'll hear them first. And that's going to be 6001 Burlington Road, which is Z-26-07-005. The next case is 4430 Old Randleman Road. which is a PL2628 annexation number and a Z2608001 rezoning number. And then we have a portion of 1177 and all of 1177ZZ, Pleasant Ridge Road, case Z-26-08-003. 217 Aloe Road, case Z-26-08-004. And 802 YY Holt Avenue. Case Z26-08-010. Those items are all being expedited and will be heard first in the order in which I call them out. So, the first case we'll be hearing is Burlington Road. All right, this is item Z-26-07-005. This is a rezoning request from CDRM18, Conditional District Residential Multifamily 18, to HUD, PUD, Planned Unit Development, and consideration of the required unified development plan for the property identified as 6001 Burlington Road, generally described as north of Burlington Road and east of Knox Road, Title of 13.25 acres.

Thank you, Chair Skeens. Again, the request is a rezoning from conditional district residential multifamily to PUD planned unit development. North of this request is currently zoned County RS-40 and County AG Agricultural. East and south requests are County AG. West request is zoned County PI Public and Institutional. The subject property is currently undeveloped at this time. North and east of the request are single family dwellings. South of the request are single-family dwellings and undeveloped land, and then to the west of the request is a religious assembly use. This is a conditional application, and these are the conditions that were offered by the applicant and advertised as part of the hearing this evening. And again, because this is a planning and development, it does have an associated unified development plan that the Commission will vote on separately with this. In recommending approval, staff notes that this property is designated as urban general on the future built form map of the comprehensive plan and as residential on the future land use map. The request does support the comprehensive plan's Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro's citywide network of unique neighborhoods, offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices, and the Building Community Connections goal to maintain stable, attractive, and healthy places to live and raise families. The proposed PUD zoning district and the associated unified development plan as conditioned does allow multifamily residential development that is compatible with existing uses located on adjacent tracks. And staff also notes that this requested zoning is for property that's located along a major thoroughfare that's appropriately sized to handle increased residence of densities. I can answer any questions.

Any questions of Mr. Kirkman?

Yes, Mr. Kirkman, this was a resolution on the UDP for the ingress and the egress, correct, on Knox Road, that are both of the entrances and exits going to be on Knox Road because the books show that and another location.

I was going to ask for transportation folks to weigh in, but we're having some technical issues here.

As soon as he repairs his mic... Mr. Tipton will respond.

I'm sorry. I was dealing with that. The UDP was changed to reflect that only one access is going to come in as far as regular vehicle access off of Knox Road and not off of 70.

Not off of Burlington Road. So Burlington Road is 70.

Yes, ma'am.

It was 70. Okay. Thank you. I just want to clarify. Thank you.

Thank you.

When we reach the point of voting on the UDP, since what we have in our books is not actually the correct one, should we make reference to the change?

Yes, I think make reference to the Unified Development Plan that the Technical Review Committee recommended approval for earlier today. As amended? That's what's on the screen, so as amended would be fine. Yes, thank you.

Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Kirkland? Would the applicant like two minutes to respond or talk about it?

No, I'm fine. 30 seconds. Nathan Duggins, 400 Bell and Mead, Suite 800, here on behalf of the applicant. This was a previously rezoned parcel that went through TRC. We had some technical challenges with our site plan. Staff recommended we change to a PUD. That's been a very good process, including the access point off of 70. We work with NTDOT. And there actually is an emergency access point on Knox Road, too, in the final revised UDP that was submitted and approved by TRC today. So I think that's probably why your books were a little behind the process. I can answer any questions. We're excited about this development. Obviously, this is right by the public's lot of housing needed in that market.

Any questions of Mr. Duggins? Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Since this is an expedited case, we will close the public hearing and move to comments or motions.

Madam Chair, let me make a motion for agenda item Z2607005. All right. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the property at 6001 Burlington Road from CDRM 18 Conditional District Residential Multifamily 18 to PUD Plan Unit Development and consideration of the required Unified Development Plan to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. Number one, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future built form map and future land use map. Number two, the proposed PUD zoning district as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent properties. And number three, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. And it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest.

Commissioner Gilmer seconds.

We have a motion by Mr. Downing and a second by Mr. Gilmer. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, like sign? And now we have a UDP. We need a motion on the UDP, please.

The UDP for the same 7-005, I'm making a motion that the UDP with the newly determined conditions regarding the ingress and the egress be accepted and voted upon.

Commissioner Gil, a second.

Okay, we have a motion to approve the UDP by Ms. Magid and a second by Mr. Gilmer. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed. Disapproval constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing. to the Planning Department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal and all such appeals will be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, September 15th, 2026 City Council meeting and all adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. Next case that we will be hearing is item PLP26-28 and Z26-08-001. This is an annexation and original zoning request from County RS40, residential single family, to CDR3, conditional district residential single family 3, for the property identified as 4430 Old Randleman Road, generally described as north of Old Randleman Road and west of Randleman Road, 1.36 acres. Ms. Harrison.

Thank you, Chair Skeens. So this is a zoning map, and it shows that the subject property is approximately 1.36 acres and is located north of Old Randleman Road and west of Randleman Road. This is an annexation and original zoning request from County RS40 to City CDR3. North and east of the request are zoned County RS40. South of the request is zoned County RS3. West of the request is City CDRM12. This is the aerial map, and it shows that the property is currently undeveloped. North of the request contains undeveloped land. East and south of the request contains single-family dwellings. West of the request contains multi-family dwellings. This is the condition submitted by the applicant. And in making a recommendation, staff states that it's favorable that the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plans Future Built Form Map currently designates the property as urban, general, and as residential on the Future Land Use Map. The proposed original zoning request supports both the Comprehensive Plans Grading Place's goal to expand Greensboro's citywide network of unique neighborhoods, offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices and a building community connections goal to maintain stable, attractive and healthy places to live and raise families. The proposed CD, our three zoning district as conditioned, is limited to single family dwellings. The proposed original zoning request allows uses that are similar to existing uses in the surrounding areas. I can answer any question that you may have.

Commissioner, do you have any questions?

Any questions? Seeing none, is the applicant here to speak?

Chair Skeens, the applicant is online on Zoom.

Okay.

And I'm getting them to start the video now. Mr. Alcantara?

Yes, I'm here. Hello?

Okay.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. My name is Julio Alcantara and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of Amar Properties LLC regarding the property located at 4430 Old Randleman Road. We are requesting annexation into the City of Greensboro and a CDR3 zoning for this approximately 1.36 acre property. The plan is to subdivide the property into two residential lots and build two single family detached homes. We have also completed neighborhood outreach using the city provided 750 foot property owner notification list and mailed them written notices to the surrounding property owners. We believe the proposed two home development is a low intensity residential use that is appropriate for the property and the surrounding area. We respectfully request the Commission's recommendation for approval of the annexation and CDR3 zoning request. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Alcantara. Did you give your address? We need that for the record.

4430 Old Randleman Road.

Okay.

Which is the address of the property.

Any questions of Mr. Alcantara? Okay. Yes, he does. All righty. This is an expedited case, so if there's no question of the applicant, we will close the public hearing. And this will involve two votes, one on annexation and one on the zoning.

I make a motion for PLP 2628 for annexation 4430 Old Roundabout Road.

Second, Ms. Maggot.

Thank you. We have a motion by Ms. Turner and a second by Ms. Maggot to approve the annexation. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so. Now we need a motion on the zoning request, please.

I'll make a motion on the zoning request for Z26-08-001. 4430 Randall Road.

You can just read it for me right now. Okay.

Greensboro, this is Z26-08-001. Can you please use your mic?

Pull it closer to you. Can you pull your microphone closer?

4430 Old Randleman Road. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the property at 4430 Old Randleman Road from County RS 40, residential single family, to City CDR 3, conditional district residential single family 3, to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. One, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future built form map and future land use map. Two, the proposed city CDR3 zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent properties. Three, the request is reasonable due to the size, fiscal conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest.

Steve Nichols, I second.

Okay, we have a motion to approve the zoning by Ms. Turner, a second by Mr. Nichols. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you. This approval, this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, September 15th, 2026 City Council meeting. Okay, next case is going to be PLP 26-30 and Z-26-08-003. This is an original zoning and rezoning request from County AG, Agricultural and City R3, Residential Single Family 3. to City CDR7, Conditional District Residential Single Family 7, for the properties identified as a portion of 1177 and all of 1177ZZ, Pleasant Ridge Road, and generally described as northwest of Pleasant Ridge Road and east of Marshall Smith Road, 114.2 acres. Ms. Harris.

Thank you, Chair Skeens. So the subject properties contains approximately 114.2 acres in total and are located northwest of Pleasant Ridge Road and east of Marshall Smith Road. This is an annexation, original zoning and rezoning request from County Agricultural and City R3, Residential Single Family 3 to City R3. City R7. North of the requested zone, County Agricultural and County RS40. East of the requested zone, City R3. South of the requested zone, City R3, County Agricultural and it's a planned unit development. West of the requested zone, County Agricultural. This is the aerial map. It shows that the subject properties currently contain a single family dwelling and undeveloped land. North, east, south and west of the request contains single family dwellings and undeveloped land. These are the conditions proposed and submitted by the applicant. And in recommending approval, the staff states that the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plans Future Built Form Map designates the subject properties as urban general, and they falls within the Western Area Plan. The subject properties are designated as residential on the future land use map. The proposed original zoning and rezoning requests support both the comprehensive plans creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro's citywide network of unique neighborhoods, offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices, and the filling in of our framework big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro. The proposed city CDR7, as conditioned, would limit uses to residential uses with an overall density not exceeding 2.2 dwellings per acre. The proposed original zoning and rezoning request allow uses that are similar to existing uses in the surrounding areas.

and i can answer any question that you may have any questions of ms harrison okay is the applicant here to talk about the case please okay good evening deidre matthews office address 101 south tryon street in charlotte although i am

Always looking forward to any opportunity to make the trip down to Greensboro. Happy to be before you all, Madam Chair and esteemed commissioners. I am partly before you because Tom Terrell says that I always have to make this introduction. But I am here on behalf of Pulte Homes with the companion request before you today, annexation and zoning. I do have George Price with Pulte Homes here. We are both available to answer any questions you may have. Otherwise, we just request your recommendation of approval. Thank you.

Any questions of Ms. Matthews? Since this is an expedited case, there is no opposition, so we will close the public hearing. We need two motions on this case, one for annexation and one for the zoning.

I'd like to make a motion for annexation for PLP 26-30, a portion of 1177 and all of 1177ZZ Pleasant Ridge Road.

Second, Warshay Downing.

Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Magid and a second by Mr. Downing to approve the annexation. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Annexation is approved. And let's move on to the rezoning request.

I'd like to make a motion for Z26-08-003. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that it's action to recommend approval of the original zoning and rezoning request for the properties at a portion of 1177 and all of 1177ZZ Pleasant Ridge Road from County AG Agricultural and City R3, Residential Single Family 3 to City CDR7, Conditional District Residential Single Family 7 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future build format and future land use map. The proposed city CDR7 zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fits the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent properties. The request is reasonable due to the size and physical conditions. and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and the surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest.

Warshay Downing, second.

Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Maggot, a second by Mr. Downing to approve the zoning request. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you. This constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, September 15, 2026 City Council meeting. Next expedited case is item Z-26-08-004. This is a rezoning request from LI Light Industrial to cdrm 26 conditional district residential multi-family 26 for the property identified as 217 aloe road generally described as east of aloe road and north of hibbler road a total of 3.61 acres miss harrison thank you chair skins this is the zoning map and it shows that the subject property contains approximately 3.61 acres

and is located east of Alla Road and north of Ibla Road. This is a rezoning request from LI to CD RM26. North of the request is zone LI. East of the request is zoned CD LI and RM12. South and west of the request are zone RM12. Aerial map shows that the subject property is currently undeveloped. North of the request is a manufacturing use. East of the request is warehousing distribution facility and undeveloped land. South of the request contains single-family dwellings and undeveloped land. West of the request contains single-family dwellings. This is the condition proposed by the applicant. And in recommending approval, staff states that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plan designates the site as planned industrial district on the future built-form map and is also adjacent to an urban mixed-use corridor. The subject property is designated as industrial on the future land-use map. The proposed rezoning request supports the comprehensive plans filling in our framework Big Idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro, as well as the Creating Great Places goal to meet housing needs and desires with a sufficient and diverse supply of housing products, prices and locations. The proposed CDRM 26 zoning district as condition allows uses that are compatible with existing uses present in the surrounding area. The subject property is at the periphery of a residential neighborhood and the proposed zoning for this property is appropriate as a transition to the lower density residential uses directly adjacent. And I can answer any question that you may have.

Any questions of Ms. Harrison?

So this is a down zoning from LI to RM26? Yes. Am I correct? Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you, Ms. Harrison. Is the applicant here to speak to the item?

Madam Chair and members of the Commission, again, this is Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road here in Greensboro. I just wanted to make myself available for any questions that you might have. But as Ms. Maggot indicated, this really is a down zoning with respect to intensity of use. As you saw in staff materials, there's a mix of multifamily zoning and a variety of industrial uses already in the area. So really something that will blend in with what's out there. And I would submit that it's going to be less impactful than what could go there on the property today with unconditioned LI property.

Any questions of Mr. Blackwood before he sits down? Thank you. Again, this is an expedited case, so there is no opposition. So we will close the public hearing. Open the floor for a motion regarding the zoning approval.

stew nichols with regard to item z26-08-004 the greensboro planning and zoning commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request of the property at 217 aloe road from li which is light industrial to cdrm 26 conditional district residential multi-family 26 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future form-built map and future land use map. The proposed CDRM 26 zoning district as conditioned permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent properties And the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest.

Second, Catherine Magid.

Thank you. We have a motion by Mr. Nichols and a second by Ms. Magid to approve. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so. Thank you. This constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the Planning Department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Anyone that may file such an appeal and all such appeals will be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, September 15, 2026 City Council meeting and all adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. Okay, moving to the next expedited case. This is item Z-26-08-010. This is a rezoning request from RM18, residential multifamily 18, to CDRM40, conditional district, residential multifamily 40. for the properties described, identified as 800, 802, and 802YY Holt Avenue, generally described as east of Holt Avenue and north of East Windover Avenue, .781 acres. Ms. Harris.

Thank you again, Chair Skeens. This is the zoning map, and it shows that the subject properties contain approximately 0.781 acres. and are located east of Holt Avenue and north of East Wendover Avenue. This is a rezoning request from RM18 to CD RM40. North, east, south and west of the request are zone RM18. The aerial map shows that the property currently contains a single family dwelling. North of the request contains a multifamily dwelling, which is a triplex. East of the request contains undeveloped land. South of the request contains single family dwellings and undeveloped land. West of the request contains single family dwellings. These are the conditions associated with this request submitted by the applicant. And in recommending approval, staff states that the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plans Future Built Form Map designates the subject properties as urban general and is located within an urban mixed-use corridor. The subject properties are designated as residential on the future land use map. The proposed rezoning request supports the comprehensive plans filling our framework goal to arrange our land uses for to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro. and the Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro's city-wide network of unique neighborhoods, offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices. The proposed CD, RM40 zoning district, as condition, would impact in terms of allowed uses and building height and surrounding residential properties. The request is located along the Wendover Avenue corridor, which is suitable for the proposed CDR and 40 zoning district. Care should be taken with respect to building orientation, building materials, building height, and visual buffer to ensure an appropriate transition to the lower-density residential uses on adjacent properties. And I can answer any questions that you may have.

I have a question I don't know whether to bring it to you or to mr kirkman but this is the first time in five years that i've ever seen an rm40 so could you explain a little bit about the condition to this because i noticed that there was no street setback and i just want to understand more about the rm yeah i mean the rm40 district uh is limited to our major thoroughfares it's our most intensive residential district outside of planning and development or something else like that but as far as uh

a residential the 40 units breaker is the the greatest density allowed as a street zoning district on there so that's probably why you haven't seen a lot of them because most of the requests have not been either not been adjacent to thoroughfares or the much larger projects that have come in through planning and development that would have had densities equal to or more than this does that help

Well, yeah, because, you know, it was East Windover Avenue, and that's a big thoroughfare, so I was just trying to figure out, and at the end of the street in a residential district, so that helped.

Right. It's adjacent to the thoroughfare. That was an option for them to pursue, yes.

Fantastic. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like two minutes to talk about their case?

Thank you. My name is Eddie Marcellino, 6309 Matheson Court. I just want to say thank you for reviewing this rezoning request. And as stated, with the request to go from RM18 to the conditional RM40, I wanted to come up here to see if there was any other questions that anyone else may have at this moment.

Any questions? Okay, I believe Ms. Magid led the way for you there. All righty, again, since this is an expedited case, there is no opposition, so we will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or motion.

Ted Oliver with a motion for item number Z26-08-010. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its actions to Recommend approval of the rezoning request for the properties at 800, 802, and 802YY Holt Avenue from RM18, residential multifamily 18, to CDRM40, conditional district residential multifamily 40, to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. Number one, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future built form map and future land use map. The proposed CDRM 40 zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent properties. Three, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest.

Commissioner Gill, a second.

Thank you. We have a motion by Mr. Oliver and a second by Mr. Gilmer to approve the case. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Very good. This constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the Planning Department. and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal. All such appeals will be subject to the public hearing at the Tuesday, September 15th, 2026 City Council meeting and all adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeals. Now, we will go back to the beginning of our agenda. And go to Z-26-07-006. This is a rezoning request from CDRM 8, Conditional District Residential Multifamily 8. to CDLI Conditional District Light Industrial with a property identified as 1822 Youngsmill Road, generally described as west of Youngsmill Road and south of Maddox Court, 39.95 acres. Ms. Harris.

Thank you, Chair Skeens. This is the zoning map, and it shows that the property actually is 39.95 acres and is located west of Youngs Mill Road and south of Modocs Fort. This is a rezoning request from CDRM8 to CDLI. North of the request is zone CDHI, every industrial, East of the request is zone CDHI and County Agricultural and County RS40. South of the request is zone County Agricultural and County RS40. West of the request is zone County Agricultural. The aerial map shows that the subject property currently contains single family dwellings and undeveloped land. North of the request contains a warehouse. East of the request contains a warehouse and single family dwellings. South of the request, south and west of the request contains single family dwellings. This image shows the subject property as seen from Young's Mills Road. This image shows the subject property as seen from Hickory Valley Road. This image shows a warehouse facility located north of the request on Modocs Court, zoned CDHI. This image shows a warehouse facility located northeast of the request on Young's Mill Road, zoned CDHI. This image shows a single family dwelling located east of the request on Young's Mill Road, zoned County. This image shows a single family dwelling located east of the request on Youngs Mill Road, Zone County, RS 40. This image shows a single family dwelling located south of the request on Youngs Mill Road, Zone County, RS 40. This image shows a single family dwelling located south of the request on Hickory Valley Road, Zone County, RS 40. County RS-40. This image shows a single-family dwelling located west of the request on Mill Point Road, Zone County, Agricultural and County RS-40. This view is facing north on Youngs Mill Road. The subject property is on the left. This view is facing south on Youngs Mill Road. The subject property is on the right. This view is facing east on Hickory Valley Road, the subject property is behind you. And this view is facing west on Hickory Valley Road, the subject property is in front of you. This is a condition submitted by the applicant. And in recommending approval, staff states that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plan doesn't miss this site as urban general on the future built form map and is also near a district scaled activity center. The subject property is designated as residential on the future land use map. The proposed rezoning request supports the comprehensive plans growing economic competitiveness goal to increase and preserve the inventory of developable sites compatible with corporate and industrial uses. The request also supports the comprehensive plans filling in Our framework strategy to maintain inventory and market key underutilized sites and structures to private industry and developers. To propose CDLI zoning district as condition would allow uses permitted under LI but includes condition to limit negative impacts on surrounding residential properties. The proposed request would allow uses that are complementary to the existing uses in the surrounding area given its proximity to other industrial uses on the interstate. Any questions of Ms. Harris?

Very good. If we could set the clock to 10 minutes, we're back on a regular agenda now, so each side will have 10 minutes and 5 minutes of rebuttal. the applicant here to present the case.

Amen.

Madam Chair and members of the Commission, again, this is Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road here in Greensboro. On the line via Zoom, a couple of folks who are out of town, reside out of town, two representatives from the developer entity, Brian Worrell and Troy Adams are on the line to help address any questions that you might have as we go through our presentation. And our civil engineer, Neil Tucker, is on the line as well. So they're available via Zoom to supplement the information presented as well as address any questions that the board may have. So I wanted to start off, you know, why are we here? Why are we requesting this LI rezoning with respect to the subject property? You'll see the subject property outlined and highlighted in red. industrial distribution logistics type facilities that you see on the screen there. Parcels 115, 771 and 116, 475 right off the 85 interchange. The property that you see highlighted and outlined in purple just to the west, this same group that's applying for rezoning with respect to the subject property acquired that property and went through a smaller scale rezoning to permit heavy industrial use across the entirety of that 151-acre assemblage. They own that property. They're intending to develop about a million square feet of distribution and logistics space on that site. What they're hearing from prospective tenants who would sign a long-term ground lease is that there's really a desire for additional parking space for their trailers in service of all of that distribution and logistics space. So that's what's driving this request. You can see here on the aerial Maddox Court, which is, yeah, you can see that. So that's that road that cuts between those two existing distribution facilities and cul-de-sac. That's what would provide the principal access for this proposed trailer parking facility. It also provides access to the distribution and logistics facility to be developed to the west. So you can see it's all kind of self-contained off of that cul-de-sac access point. that was installed in service of this anticipated industrial use. Just wanted to highlight again, there's already a tremendous amount of heavy industrial, industrial use in the immediate area. Naturally, you'll see that sort of thing this close to an interstate interchange right off of 85. That's where these types of transportation-oriented industrial uses tend to locate. So not only do we have the 150-some-odd acres to the west, that applicant owns. We also have those existing distribution and logistics facilities owned by third parties that border the other sides of Maddox Port there. So this is not a use that's new to the area, and what we're proposing here is really in support of what's to come to the west on that larger piece of HI property. You see the CDRM8 zoning that this property is currently zoned. This property was annexed and zoned three, four years ago to permit a multifamily development, townhomes and apartments up to around 250. You can see on the zoning map, there's some water features and streams and wetlands. One of my colleagues in office, Amanda Hodier, who presents frequently in front of this commission, often says that zoning is permission to try. And then there's been several home builders who have tried to lay out a developable residential product on this site. Those streams and water features have really made it very difficult to to get the unit count that would be required to make this a viable project, which is another reason why this is on the market. And our folks have tied it up under contract in hopes to bring it online in connection with their distribution use. So what you see on the screen now, this is an illustrative sketch plan. And again, Neil Tucker is on the line with Stimel to help address any technical questions that the commission may have with respect to the layout. You'll see on the southern boundary line a 45-foot Type A buffer, which is the city's beefiest landscaping buffer under the ordinance. That will be required by virtue of the proposed use adjacent to single-family residential. We're showing our principal access point off of Maddox Court to the north. The intent is that the user of the industrial facility to the west will just tie in and access this trailer parking facility via Maddox Court as well, as previously noted. But again, you can see the existing stream and wetland features on this property. It just makes it very difficult to develop when you consider minimum lot standards, lot widths, and all of the road frontages and driveways, curb cuts that would come along with that previously proposed residential development. So that's one of the cruxes for this current request, and just good timing in that the folks next door are developing their site and they're hearing a real need from their prospective tenants as to this sort of use in connection with that space. We did send out notice letters to all property owners within the city's 750-foot mailing radius, held a neighborhood meeting on August the 3rd. We had two folks who attended that meeting. No real material concerns with respect to the proposed land use. Perhaps they may be those who are online via Zoom and they could speak more. to their potential concerns or questions. We left that meeting feeling fairly positive with the response that we received. So we did make an effort to communicate with folks in the area who were interested, and we're happy to continue that conversation beyond the commission's decision this evening. So with that, again, we've got two folks online from the developer team, Troy and Brian, and Neil, who's on board with our civil engineering firm. So between the four of us, I'm hopeful that we can address any questions that the commission may have.

Any questions of Mr. Blackwood or any of the team that's online? I'm not seeing any.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this request? Seeing none, we'll move to the opposition.

Chair Skeens, Ms. Stamper had requested to speak but does not wish to do so anymore. So there is no opposition at the moment.

So there is no opposition?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Then in light of that and no questions of the applicant, we will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussions or motions.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion for agenda item Z26-07-006. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that it's action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the property at 1822 Youngs Mill Road from CDRM 8, Conditional District, Residential Multifamily 8, to CDLI, Conditional District, Light Industrial, to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. Number one, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future built form map and future land use map number two the proposed cdli zoning district as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impact on the adjacent properties number three the request is reasonable due to the size physical conditions and other attributes of the area it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community and approval is in the public interest steve nichols i second

we have two seconds we have a motion from mr downing and a second first one i heard was from mr nichols to approve the request all in favor please signify by saying aye aye any opposed like sign very good this approval constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days anyone may file such an appeal all such appeals will be subject to a public hearing at the tuesday september 15th 2026 city council meeting and all adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal The next case is PLP 2629 and Z 2608-002. This is an annexation and original zoning request from County RS 30 residential single family to cdrm 8 conditional district residential multi-family 8 for the property identified as 5118 summit avenue generally described as east of summit avenue and south of high cone road 4.05 acres mr kirkman yes thank you chair schemes again this is a request for annexation to come into the city's jurisdiction and

Establish original zoning from County RS 30 residential single family to City CBRM 8 conditional district residential multifamily. North of the request is currently zoned County RS 30 residential single family, County CZHB conditional zoning highway business, and County HB highway business. East, south, and west requests are currently zoned County RS 30 residential single family. The subject property is currently undeveloped at this point. North, east, and west of the request are single-family dwellings and undeveloped land. South of the request is a single-family dwelling. This is an image showing the subject property as seen from Summit Avenue. This image shows undeveloped land located north of the request on Summit Avenue, zone County HB and County CZ HB highway business. This image shows examples of single-family dwellings located north of the request on High Cone Road, zone County RS 30. This image shows undeveloped land that's actually located behind the residential structures, located east of request as seen from High Cone Road, zone county RS 30. This is a single family dwelling located south of the request on Summit Avenue, zone county RS 30. This is an image of a single family dwelling located west of the request, also on Summit Avenue, zone county RS 30. This image shows undeveloped land located west of request on Summit Avenue, zone county RS 30. This is a view facing northeast on Summit Avenue. The subject property here is located on the right. And this is facing southwest on Summit Avenue. The subject property here is on your left. These are the conditions that were proposed as part of this request by the applicant. In recommending approval, staff notes that the feature-built form map of the comprehensive plan designates the subject property as urban general, and it's also designated as residential on the feature land use map. The proposed original zoning request supports the comprehensive plans Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro's citywide network of unique neighborhoods, offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices, and the filling in our framework big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro. The proposed CDRM8 zoning district as condition offers a range of residential uses. And this original zoning request allows uses that are similar to surrounding uses. Staff in this care should be taking in with respect to building orientation, materials, height, and visual buffers to ensure appropriate transitions to lower density residential or adjacent properties. I can answer any questions.

Any questions of Mr. Kirkman?

I just have one. Mr. Kirkman, the lot width of this, you know, it's a very long and narrow piece of property. The lot width on an RM8 would be, it's 50 for 50.

The minimum lot width, are you talking about for a multifamily or for a single family?

Yeah, for a multifamily.

I don't have that information in front of me. I have to get that information.

For townhomes. I'm just curious how it's going to fit on here.

Yeah, one of the benefits of going to multifamily is you can do a common access, basically, instead of having a public street where everything fronts on the street. As a single family, you can do a private drive or a private access, which is what I think the applicant is intending to do.

No more than 32 townhome dwellings.

And the applicant can speak further to that, but that is the intent, as we understand it, that they're going to basically use a private access off the public street and then take all of their units off of that. Yeah, that's why it's okay to do it that way. Does that help?

I just wondered if there was a problem with that. It looked really narrow.

And obviously, you know, this is, again, getting rights to do certain things. They still have to go through plan review. We have to make sure that everything is going to work correctly. Transportation obviously will look at the access questions and make sure that there's no issues on the public side.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. So eight was the best way to go, remedy for this?

That seemed to be the one that would work for the applicant's intent, yes. Okay, thanks so much. Do you have a question?

Okay.

Any other questions? Okay, is the applicant here to present their case?

Hang some materials.

Good evening, Madam Chair and the Commission. My name is Roosevelt Smith. I'm a member of Fair Rock Holdings.

I'm sorry, could you repeat your name?

I'm sorry. I said good evening, Madam Chair and the Commission. My name is Roosevelt Smith. I'm one of the principals of Fair Rock Holdings. And what we're going to be discussing tonight is the property at 5111, 5111, 5111, 5111, 5111, 51118, Summit Road.

And Mr. Smith, could you state your address for the record as well?

5118 Summit Avenue. Okay. Greensboro, North Carolina. It's going to be gross acreage, the gross acreage is 4518. The total amount of properties is going to be 32. Even though we're zoned for 35, we're going to cap it off at 32. The net acre is going to be 7.3. net point acres and we're going to be going from county rs30 to a c city cdrm8 what we're primarily what we're here to do tonight is that we're going to and we want to get annexed into the city and also change the change the rezoning to a cdrm8 All right. And as you can see, we're located right off Summit Avenue, which is a minor thoroughfare, 60-feet row, across the street, a highway business commercial and a fuel station and a home right behind us. North of us, as the pictures say, at High Cone Road, there's a single-family edge. The rear property line is neighboring parcels along the eastern boundary. And the good thing about Summit Avenue is, The 32 properties has a very minimal impact on the roads going in. Thank you. It's going to have a very little impact. For this many units, they told us that it's not going to be a significant impact for them to do a road study. As you can see, that's the designation. As you can see, the brown due dated from the survey is May 2026. And hopefully that answers your question on the size. And hopefully you can see the width of everything. Does anyone have any questions up to this point?

Okay.

Okay, now here's the site plan. To answer your question before, if you notice, there's going to be four units per building. And what happens is that each unit's going to have their own garage and their own driveway. And as you can see from the model we gave you, it might change a little bit. For the most part, that's how it's going to look. Our goal is to more or less bring in more of the millennials, younger professionals, more established professionals, and also for people who are just moving into the area, it's going to be some for the elderly people also who want to move into a nice place. As you can see, that's the design. And also, there's also going to be at the end for as far as water conservation, we're going to have a little retention pond to help with the environment. We're also going to be putting a sidewalk to help with the ease of walking up and down Summit Avenue. And probably the biggest thing is that we are going to be just doing townhouses, no apartments, nothing else. It is going to be townhouses. Our goal is to commit to the GSO 2040 to add nice, affordable housing to the Greensboro area. Okay? As you can see, There is precedent for this in this area. There was one development that tried to do this, but the thing is they were way overpopulated. They were trying to get 300. We're capping off at 32, which more or less fits into the area. All right, I'm going to let Sheila Colas come in. She's helping me assisting in this project.

Good evening, Madam Chair and commissioners. For slide nine, we want to do like a straight rezoning, like Roosevelt said, and we're hoping that you would, huh?

I'm so sorry, y'all. Ms. Colas, could you give us your address, please?

Yes. 4929 West Market Street, Suite 2125. Okay. Thank you. So, okay, so here, as you can see, the requested trade-off is a straight, we're not trying to do a straight RM8. We want to do a CDRM8 so that we can make sure we have reserves on it and make sure that A lot of things that could have been done in RM8, we won't do, right? So this, the RM, CDRM8, will allow us to only focus on townhomes, dwellings only, no more than 32 units, 45-foot height maximum. And we want to focus on a really nice facade, edge buffer. We want to have privacy fencing. And one of the reasons why we We do want to have privacy fencing is that that was also mentioned at the meeting that we had with the neighbors. There was one neighbor there that was concerned about his trees and stuff like that. So we want to make sure there's a distinction between their property and ours. So now for the six conditions we're offered to make to request townhome use, height, single family edge, which would include the 15-foot buffer, landscaping buffer, plus privacy fencing. Our unit cap at 32 dwellings. The facade, we're trying to keep the vinyl very minimal, and we want to put more bricks, stone, masonry. We're still working with our designer on that. And then for Summit, we want to, like Roosevelt said, we do want to, ooh, I'll go back.

Can you help her? Because she's lost her place. Yes. And could they stop the clock while she's looking? They're getting it fixed, thank you.

Thank you, sorry about that. No, go back one more. Go back. Slide 10. Yeah. Yeah, so as number six here, we want to create a sidewalk so that the neighbors and everyone can be able to cross the street. Because right now there's no sidewalk in that area, so we want to kind of try to create that to make it look nicer and to also help the community and the neighbors. So 32 is below the site RM8 density calculations. 35 is what we're supposed to be capped at, but we've downgraded to 32 units, like we mentioned before. The estimated trips, one thing that was mentioned a lot of times at the meeting that we had was traffic. And a lot of the neighbors are concerned about that, but I spoke to Kim at Planning and Zoning. I also spoke to, got a feasibility for the flow and fire flow and all of that to make sure that everything would be Okay, I'm not sure if you got a copy of the feasibility study. I did submit it and I also submitted a commissioner packet for you all. I'm not sure if you got that. No? But yeah, that's it right there. I'm sorry, I only have one copy. But based on it, we would do 230 trips a day, which is far less than what is needed to have a traffic study done. Kim also did mention that we do not need a TIS, a transportation impact study, I believe is what it's called. Not infrastructure. Water, we have a 36-inch main shown on Summit Avenue. We also have a sewer, which is an 8-inch main that's close by. There's no watershed. Well, Jordan Lake, new tent management requirement applied. The site is not in a water supply watershed in the stormwater. An engineer control measure is shown at the east end. Final design proceeds through technical review. We're still in the process of talking with them about that. We did talk to Duke Energy about the poles that are right in front of the home. They said that once we get permits approved for, once we get rezoning approval and permit approval, they'll come out and put them on the ground. So that'll help also with traffic and having a lot of space to move around.

And more importantly, in the event that you guys, if the city of Greensboro, in the event that the city decides to expand the road by putting the lines underneath, it'll ease that problem.

And then for the GSO request, I did look up how much we've grown in Greensboro. We've grown since 2024, 307,381. new residents from 2024 up from about 283 a decade ago. So the city is growing a lot. We really want to help in that. And, of course, we don't want to make the neighbors uncomfortable, so that's why we're capping it at where we're capping it at. Likely questions, like I mentioned, a lot of neighbors did discuss the traffic.

Your time is up. I have one question on slide, I believe it was 10. You listed a group of conditions that were not made part of the request. And the comment was if these conditions are approved. Are you wanting to add these to your request?

Yes, because it was mentioned during the neighborhood meeting, and that happened on April, on the 13th.

Can we go back to that slide? I think some of those things are city requirements. Here we go, this one. So, confirm with transportation staff that the sidewalk along the summit is required by ordinance, so that would not be a condition.

One, two, and three are covered in the conditions.

Correct, right. So, I think the question is, The 15-foot landscape buffer is required by ordinance. It does not speak to whether about a fence, which we need more details on that, but at least the landscape buffer is required by ordinance, so that's not an issue. And then we need more detail about any kind of materials and facade treatments We can't go with just we're going to use less of something and more of something, we need more prescriptive information. So I would say at this point that the commission, as these things are currently presented, either are already addressed by the ordinance or would not be in a form that the commission could adopt as additional conditions.

Well, and number six is really covered by the ordinance too, isn't it?

Correct, right.

Yeah, so the only one not covered is four, which is facades.

Right, and we would need it to be more prescriptive. We would need it to be more prescriptive than it is. It's a minimum percentage of materials, a prohibition on certain types of materials, those types of things. As it's noted here, this is not able to be a condition.

Yeah, once we finalize the site plans and everything of that nature, we'll have that for you.

And this, you know, this is an annexation request, so this will go to city council. So there will be some additional time if they want to try to add that to the request. But commission must consider what you've got in front of you tonight with the two conditions.

So we really cannot consider these. Well, actually, there's only one, and it's got to be drafted into an acceptable form, and that can be done. before council assuming what our action is.

Right. But for the commission tonight, all you can consider are the two conditions that were in your information.

Isn't there two because they're talking about a privacy fence as well as the masonry?

We can talk with them further about that as well.

That's not set in stone. That's something we're offering.

Okay. Any questions of the applicant before we move to the opposition?

So I just have maybe just one question. I'm looking at the illustrative rendering. Is the townhome, is it four stories or three stories? Three stories. Okay. Just making sure because, of course, that is one of the qualifications there. Okay. And you have some other questions. That's it for now. Thank you.

Any questions of the applicant? We will move to the opposition. Those who are opposed to this request, please come to the podium and state your name and address, please.

Good evening. My name is Chad Honeycutt. I'm at 4010 High Cone Road. I just wanted to put my input in as far as putting townhomes in that area. I mean, it would almost look like skyscrapers compared to what's around there. And then we had a neighborhood meeting, and we were under the impression that it would be almost like a gated community. And hearing about the sidewalk, I mean, a sidewalk on Summit, there's nothing before it or after it. You know, it's all county out there. It would kind of just look very out of place. Not that the townhomes wouldn't look very out of place, but I just wanted to put my input in there, and I thank y'all for listening.

It's ten minutes. Yeah. Yeah.

Jenna Pardue, 5017 Laneside Road. We are opposing the 5118 Summit Avenue. I've actually spent the past couple of days after meeting with opposing counsel. We have gone through and got petitions.

I'm having trouble hearing you. I'm so sorry.

I hear it now. That's a little bit better. Could you start over? Because I didn't hear anything.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Again, my name is Jenna Pardue, 5017 Langside Road. We attended the meeting last Thursday with opposing counsel, and we have lots of questions, concerns that we do not quite agree with. We have spent the past couple of days going around screening areas, down Summit, Avenue down Highcomb Road and surrounding back properties where this is going to back up to on Langside Road. We have gathered a petition, letters from farms, businesses, every homeowner minus the vacant properties in the area. Some of our biggest concerns is heavy traffic. That place is already an issue as is, so that is already a reroute from Highway 29 if there's ever an issue. We have found online that there is already funding in place for turning lanes because traffic is so heavy. Another concern we have is with the sidewalk being added, is that going to add leeway for bus stops in the area? Is that going to cause another issue? If you're putting a bus stop right in front of a gas station, how congested is that going to get? The three-story building is another concern that we have with it being in single-home areas. areas with those three-story buildings even with an eight-foot fence it's going to be overlooking all of the surrounding neighbors houses backyards any privacy is going to be invaded at that point in time And if you guys would like, I can give you the petitions, all of the paperwork that we've written up as far as what we oppose to, how we feel, and everybody's handwritten letters. Our biggest thing is really Rudd Farm and the traffic, that farm right around the corner. So where they're at right now, they're at some avenue in Highcomb. Rudd Farm is maybe two doors down from them. That's already congested as in the summertime, pumpkin season, whatever it is. That's really our biggest concern is we already have such a huge issue there as is, and then you hear rumors of strip malls and things like that being added right in the same place. We're just really concerned about the safety of our neighbors. If I may, I can give you guys this information.

Can we stop the clock just a minute, please? We've had two references to height and sidewalk. The sidewalk is required by the city. We can't do anything about that. Any new construction is going to require a sidewalk. It's a sidewalk to nowhere. I realize that, but it's going to be required. On the height, help me here, this is currently zoned.

Well, it's zoned in the county right now, County RS.

It's county, but he's talking about height. And in the city, R3, which is residential. The maximum height is 50 feet.

50 feet or three stories, yes.

So the condition they've added actually makes it shorter than what the maximum would be allowed for a single-family house. So the height is going to be less than single-families.

So I think we're going off of what May is currently there right now. If you guys look in the area, I don't know if you're able to look at those pictures, there's not a single home that's within that height length or width or anything right now. Everybody is way, way below that. And it's going to overlook all of those existing homes. Okay.

Okay.

Good evening. I'm Denise Lyle-Jones. I live at 5115 Summit Avenue. This is a house I owned. This is my home place. This was originally the Lyle farm. This is very important to me. It's very emotional. This is my home. This property, like I said, was my grandfather's. It means a whole lot to me. What concerns me so much is the traffic. The traffic is so heavy on this road now. I fear for my neighbors going to our mailbox, what it's going to be like. Please listen to us. This is a very nice neighborhood. Summit and High Cone, we're very close. And listen to us, please. Please do not let them destroy our neighborhood. And thank you for just listening to me. And thank you for the consideration. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? Would the applicant like five minutes of rebuttal?

I understand the emotion involved in this, and I understand the closeness of the community. If we weren't bringing something that was going to add to the community, I'd have a problem with it. But I just can't see how having a nice neighborhood, adding nice properties, and adding new neighbors is going to be a problem. I can understand the traffic issues, but 32 townhouses, Greensboro's already, the Department of Transportation has already looked at 32 townhouses is not going to be a significant impact on that road. I don't know what's coming in, what's coming around, but that's not going to be increased significantly by this setup.

at the meeting i heard what everyone said and i took notes and i made sure that i addressed it i even sent emails asking about the traffic situation because that was the biggest concern that they had and i was get told that if we do not need a tis um because of it's not going to be that much of an impact i really do want to

make things you know not any friction with our neighbors but at the same time we're doing our best that we can to make sure that the development is actually adding to the neighborhood and not taking away from it and probably the biggest thing is is that greensboro is in a housing shortage right now and i think this development it doesn't solve all the problems but it does bring it does bring a little relief to the area

And the only reason why we're even doing it as a three-story is because if we were doing it a two-story, it wouldn't even be enough living space. So that's why we have to do a three-story. A two-story, because of the length of the lot, we need to have a garage where they can park inside. And then the second parking would be that, I forgot what it's called, sorry.

It's more convenient for parking and it saves on space. The way the whole, we have engineers designing this and working with us on this, so we're going to be able to maximize the space, maximize as far as the aesthetics of the property, and more or less, it's going to be an adjunct. Because there is a strip mall that's already been approved that's going to be moving into the area. So having that along with the strip mall is going to add to the, more or less, for lack of a better term, curb appeal.

I meant driveway. I had a brain fart.

Any questions of the applicant?

You say it's three stories, but it's really four when you count the garage, right?

No, it's three stories. We're under the 50 feet. As you said, 50 feet's a requirement. We're under 45. And it's just three stories.

The driveway is just like, you know where the garage is? When they drive in and the garage shuts, there's gonna be a driveway right there where they can park. That would be their second parking.

I understand. I just see three stories of living space and one story of garage. That's what I'm saying.

No, it's three levels. It's three levels. It's not going to be anything more. The renderings are just renderings to give you an idea, but we're going to be held by a standard that we've already done this with the city as far as the plans and what we're producing and what we're putting out. It's going to be three levels.

We can always make it a flat spot if the talk looks concerning.

I think it's the domers, that's what you call them, the domers, that makes it seem as though it is for, you know what I'm trying to say, four levels.

Yeah, we can always flatten that out.

Like I said, it's just a conceptual drawing to give you an idea of what's going to be there. It's not set in stone.

So can I back up just for a minute? I didn't ask the question about your public meeting with the neighbors. Yes. When did that occur and how many people attended?

We probably, it happened probably last Wednesday. It was last? August 13th and we probably had roughly 20 people come through and we did it right there on the property and we sent out mailers and we got a good response and that's how we were able to answer all the different questions that we had.

Thank you, thank you.

Any other questions from the applicant? You didn't say TRC specifically. Have you taken this to the technical review?

Yes. Hagen Engineering is our civil engineer and they've worked closely with TRC to create this site plan.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Whoops, wait a minute. Mr. Gilmer has a question.

I got one question for Steph. Normally when a developer wants to develop property, does it go TRC before it comes here? Sometimes. Normally.

So it's not required. We do encourage it through what we call the sketch plan review, which is a conceptual drawing, basically, of kind of giving an idea of what's going on there so we can see if there's any major service delivery issues or other things that are constraints on the property that would impact the potential development. So they did do a sketch review to get some initial information and then would have had a separate conversation with transportation specifically on whether or not a traffic study was required.

You would know something about it before it comes before us, right?

We encourage it enough that in most cases somebody will do that, but we can't require it, so I can't say in all cases.

I know that, but I've said in most cases it usually comes before us.

Yeah, we have some familiarity with the concept of what they're talking about, yes. Okay.

All right, thanks.

And according to the staff report. The TRC on August 6th only was considering it for annexation.

Correct. That was just a question about whether or not it could be served by city services. That's that specific question.

But TRC has not looked at their plans.

I think they've done a sketch review as well. But again, it's more conceptual in nature. So there's no approvals that go with that. It's just simply that we have looked at the concepts.

Where is the parcel where the strip mall has been approved?

It's right next door on the corner of High Cone Road.

I'm assuming that one? Yes.

On the corner?

On the corner.

Corner of High Cone and Summit.

Related to the TRC kind of question, the traffic impact study, they didn't see enough impact to have to do one? Is that what I understood?

Yes, sir.

Is that right, Mike? Okay.

Yes, based on the unit count and the facility next door, the thoroughfare, there wasn't deemed the need to do a full analysis.

Now are there any other questions? Thank you. Would the opponents now like five minutes of rebuttal? And just as a reminder, this is rebuttal to information that's been presented. It's not any new information.

Chad Honeycutt, 4010 High Corner Road. I was just curious about the approval on the strip loan. Is that, like, confirmed or not? Because we never received no letter in the mail about that being changed.

That is not in the city's jurisdiction, so if there was a zoning change, it would have been at the county level, and I can't speak to that at this point.

The zoning map has indicated that it's HB.

So that's existing zoning, so I'm not sure if that, I don't know if that's a recent change.

It's existing and we don't know when it was done. Correct. But it's been zoned highway business for the corner and then going down High Cone Road beside it is a conditional highway business. So that whole corner is designed to be commercial.

Okay.

Or is already zoned for commercial in the county.

All right. Thank you all very much.

Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in opposition? And again, this is rebuttal.

Brenda Hicks, 5114 Summit Avenue. Just two things. They said they held a neighborhood meeting and that is true. But none of us got the notification until the day before the meeting. It was held outside on the side of the road and in the 90-degree temperatures. So a lot of people, especially elderly, did not show up for that meeting. And it was not... a pleasant meeting, let's say, because people generally were talking among themselves about the impact on their property. The second thing I want to address is, I know you said that about the traffic, but your traffic study was 2024. And since that time, Procter & Gamble sends their trucks through there They come up High Cone. I'm sorry. They come down High Cone and turn onto Summit. They come up Summit and turn onto High Cone. It's a really tight move, and a lot of people just about get hit by the trucks. I know that what was said about traffic studies not being required, but there's a lot more traffic. I mean a lot. in the last two years. So that's something that we may want to investigate. So those are the two points I'd like to make.

Okay.

How many times do we have to talk? Okay.

There's time left. Do I need to say my name again? Chad Honeycutt, 4010 High Cone Road. I just wanted to reiterate what she was saying as far as I was at the neighborhood meeting and there was no no one happily there with what was what's trying to be changed and they're not here today like she said they were older you know may not be able to make it here I just wanted to speak on their behalf that no one that I talked to was happy about what was coming thank y'all sir let me ask you a question very quick you was at the meeting

Now, at the meeting, what was, as they were presenting this to you guys, what was about this presentation, this development that you guys didn't like?

Just the clutteredness of it. I mean, that lot, like she was saying, it's not but so wide, and if they've got to have some kind of berm around it, it's just going to clutter everything up, and being that high, My property butts up to it. I'll probably be three quarters down on it. But it would just clutter things and they were talking about basically a gated community, but it would be like a wrought iron fence going around the whole property. And with that height, you know, it don't matter what size fence you put in there. It's not really going to do much, but maybe if it was, if it does happen, maybe if it was a solid fence to keep their stuff on their side and I'll keep my stuff on my side type deal, but I know the city's got to grow, but I just feel like there's a whole lot of other places where they could build and grow besides in the county, you know, trying to take one little piece to call the city.

Let me ask you this. Do you think the quality of this development, is it something, a good fit for this community or not?

I do not. I just don't think it would fit in, no. I mean, it's a bunch of older folks in there, and when I moved in seven years ago, that's why we bought the house, because it was a nice, quiet area, not young, you know, boomers trying to make a name for themselves. I feel like there's plenty of apartments and townhomes within the city limits that they could call their residence instead of trying to take that one little spot for a city.

Do you think it will bring down the value of your homes, your land?

I don't think it will help it.

Okay. Any other questions?

Thank you all very much.

Okay.

I'm Denise at 5115 Summit. I'm not trying to be sentimental, but I'm just trying to stress the traffic. Like Ms. Hicks said, it's dangerous. And I've called Highway Patrol to sit in my driveway. And this road is picked up so much. It's just, I mean, it's scary. And the trucks, I try to abide by them, especially on high cones. But people don't know until they live out here how the track gets picked up and somebody's going to get killed. And I hope it's not me. But y'all got to listen to us, please. Don't let them put this here. It's just a lot. It's not big enough. Just listen. Thank you. Thank you for just listening to me. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak during the rebuttal opposition? I'm seeing none. We will close the public hearing. Open for discussions.

I'd just like to say that right now around this property there are R3s and R5s. And at four acres with an R5, you would be able to develop 20 units easily, and the land use would be compatible to what exists. So I just want to say that that could pass very easily by this committee because it would be compatible from a land use point of view. So I just wanted to add that.

Okay. So I'm trying to gather my thoughts, a number of things that come up. So thank you for the presentation. Looking at my notes, I was Googling something on our GIS map to see. So about 1.6 miles away east, you have some CDR M18 and a little bit of R3s as well. It is not terribly inconsistent. But what I am concerned about is... the neighborhood communication. And we value that. I know I value that because of the neighbors. That's not going to be incongruent because land use is still a viable component to this. So I'm gathering my thoughts. The traffic aspect, as the city has rendered, does not necessarily mandate a traffic study. But what I'm continuing to look at is the consistency 1.6 miles away. And then I'm also looking at there are no conditions that have been set per se. So the conditions are not that were shared are not necessarily conditions that can be elaborated upon because of the community has not had their input. Yeah, well, you have some conditions, but I'm saying that I think more work needs to be done to talk to the neighbors and such. But again, I'm in between because of various reasons. I think more communication has to be made. I really do. But nevertheless, this is an annexation request as well. So right now it is in the county. And we are seeing tremendous growth in the area. So that is not to be withheld there either. So I'm stuck. I don't know. I'm just talking, but we'll see.

Any other comments? Mr. Peterson, you look like there's something on your mind.

I will be supportive. Yes, I would be supporting the development because I think it was, I understand about the traffic and everything, but if land is out there, it's going to be developed. And we do have a housing shortage and a little different mixed use of the neighborhood. I think that's all neighborhoods. And every neighborhood is going to change a little bit. I will be supporting it.

Thank you. I too will be supporting it. I understand that these issues are emotional and they're challenging. But when I was out in the area looking at the neighborhood, it struck me as clearly a neighborhood in transition directly across the street from a gas station, strip mall planned adjacent. And I think it's a really thoughtful idea. It's a parcel of land that will be very challenging to develop because of its shape. And I think the developer, the applicant, has come up with an approach that puts reasonable density when we need density. We desperately need housing. I've heard what you've said about the traffic concerns. I think the traffic problem can be mitigated, so I would hope that the city would work on that. But also, I guess when I look at the layout of the houses that are adjacent, I'm not persuaded that the height of these buildings, in terms of privacy of the neighborhood, That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong concern, so I'll be supporting it.

I think I share Ms. Magid's concern about the appropriateness of the building for this lot. And I think if you look at the number of units that could be already built there without any zoning change, I'd probably lean towards that as preferring that for the 20 units on the zoning, if I'm doing my math right, right? R5. If you look around the other intersections there, there's the four intersections at the highway. There's a lot of development on all the other three quadrants, and there's going to be development coming here. I encourage you. I like density. I want more density. I'm not sure this is the exact right development for this piece of property.

and i also will be supporting this project i think that it is a neighborhood in transition but i think that this addition is going to be something that adds value i know that there's controversy about that but it does seemed to me, given, again, when I drove around the neighborhood, I do think that it is a nice development and it is going to add value, and I will be supporting it.

I did forget to add one thing. I go to the gas station by that area very frequently, and I have noticed it is in transition. I have noticed that. So my thoughts are now clear. I believe I am 80% going to support this, I believe. We shall see when the vote comes.

Is that a maybe? It's a maybe. Okay.

And it's all respect to both parties because I do see the transition that is happening in the area.

Any other comments? Are we, anyone ready to make a motion?

Commissioner Keith Peterson, I make a motion to annex PLP 26-29 from the county to the city of 5118 Summit Avenue. I second.

Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Peterson and a second by Ms. Turner to grant the annexation. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign?

Aye. Opposed.

Okay, so that is a 7-1 vote for the annexation. How about the zoning?

Commissioner Keith Peterson, item G-26-20. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the property at 5118 Summit Avenue and a portion of Summit Avenue right away from County RS 30 residential single-family to CD-RM-8 conditional district residential multifamily 8 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan future build format and future land use map. The proposed city CD-RM-8 zoning district as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. The request is reasonable due to the size, physical condition, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner

and surrounding community and approval is in the public interest commissioner gilmore seconds okay we have a motion from mr peterson a second by mr gilmer to uh grant the rezoning all in favor please signify by saying aye aye opposed like sign i'm opposed no i say no two nays so that is a six to two This constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, September 15th, 2026 City Council meeting. What that means is that you've got about three weeks to get together with the applicant and the neighbors to see what compromises might be reached prior to it being heard before council. All right. Next case is Z-26-08-005, which is 4800 Mitchell Avenue. Mr. Perdue? How about, well, Mr. Perdue presented them. Mr. Honeycutt, he's holding the door. Did you get them? Thank you, Mr. Oliver.

Just been informed by staff that the person that was signed up in opposition for Mitchell Avenue has dropped off from Zoom. So I don't know if we have any opposition at this point to this case, if you would like to ask that.

Is there anyone here opposed to the 4800 Mitchell Avenue? All right. All right.

So with your permission, we'll go through the expedited process then.

Let's do on item Z-26-08-005. This is a rezoning request from R3, residential single family 3, to CDRM 12, conditional district residential multifamily 12. The property identified is 4800 Mitchell Avenue, generally described as north of Mitchell Avenue and west of New Chapel Road, 1.5 acres. Mr. Kirkland.

Yes, thank you again. The rezoning is from R3 residential single family to CDRM12 conditional district residential multifamily. Zoning to the north of this property, excuse me, and south as well, is CDRM12 conditional district residential multifamily. East of the request is zoned to R3 residential single family, and west of the request is zoned a combination of R3 and R5 residential single family. This subject property is currently undeveloped at this time. North of the request are multifamily dwellings that are currently under development. East of the request are single family dwellings and multifamily dwellings, also under development. South of the request are multifamily dwellings and west of the request are single family dwellings and a public park. This is a conditional application and this is the condition associated with the request. In recommending the approval, staff notes that the Conference of Plans Future Built Form Map designates the property's urban general and is residential on the future land use map. The proposed rezoning does support the Conference of Plans filling in our framework strategy to encourage higher density, mixed-use, walkable infill development and the Creating Great Places goal to meet housing needs and desires with a sufficient and diverse supply of housing products, prices, and locations. Proposed CDRM 12 district allows land uses that are compatible with the general character of the area and supported by the proximity to the Mitchell Street Park, as well as more intense uses located along Mears Chapel Road and further along West Market Street. Staff can answer any questions.

Any questions of Mr. Kirkland? Seeing none, is the applicant here, would you like a couple of minutes to comment about your proposal?

I'll be quick. Jason Bramlett, 4800 Mitchell Avenue. Just request the rezoning to be in basically like the neighbors. so with everybody the rezoning essentially as the gentleman said to the north and to the south is rm12 to the left of us is a city park and then everything else is pretty much being rezoned or turned into multi-family up and down the street so i just thought it made sense to join what's going on

all righty any questions there's that one little holdout lot right is there it looks like there's one one lot that's not being part of this it kind of wraps around it there's there's probably sir there might be four homes on that street that are not involved in the multi-family change but it looks like between was it cayman drive and

blue spring street is that right there's a is there a house just right there kind of oh i see yeah okay so there is um i think it was a old maybe plaid city road and then to the right of that yes sir there is there's a on paper there's not a road there but on paper there is and then there is a um yes there is a single family home to the right that's correct you're kind of building around it right Well, I don't have anything to do with the other property. This is just my little house that I want rezoned, so I don't have anything to do with what's already been approved.

So all that development that's going on around you is not part of what you're doing? No, sir.

Oh, okay. No, sir. I'm just the individual owner out there. I don't even know who owns that land.

Okay.

Any other questions for Mr. Bramlett? Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Since there is no opposition, we will close the public hearing and move to comments or motions.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion for Agenda Item Z2608005. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that it is apt to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the property at 4800 Mitchell Avenue from R3 Residential Single Family 3 to CDRM 12 Conditional District Multi-Family. conditional district residential multifamily 12 to be consistent with the adopted gso 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons number one the request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future built for map and future land use map the proposed cdrm 26 No, that's not right. The proposed CDRM 12 zoning district as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent properties. Number three, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest.

second catherine maggott okay we have a motion and a second a motion from mr downing a second from miss maggott to approve the rezoning request all in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed like sign that passes on a vote of eight to zero and this constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the Planning Department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal, and all such appeals will be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, September 15, 2026 City Council meeting. All adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeals.

So, Chair Skeens, I also have been informed by staff that the person that had signed up in opposition for the next case is no longer online. So, I do not believe we have opposition as well on that case, but you can check to make sure.

Okay. The next and last case is item Z-26-08-006. This is a rezoning request from R3, residential single family 3, to CDRM 8 Conditional District Residential Multifamily 8 for the property identified as 1927 Fleming Road, generally described as southwest of Fleming Road and west of Pasquale Place, 2.79 acres.

Thank you, Chair Stens. Again, the request is a rezoning from R3 Residential Single Family to CDRM 8 Conditional District Residential Multifamily 8. North and West Requests are zoned R03, residential single family. Eastly Requests are zoned CDRM5, conditional district residential multifamily, as well as CDO, conditional district office. And Southly Requests is conditional district residential multifamily. This subject property currently contains a single family dwelling. North and West Requests are single family dwellings. Eastly Requests are multifamily dwellings in an office use. Southly Requests are multifamily dwellings. This is a conditional application, and this is the condition that was advertised as part of the request. In the recommending approval, the staff notes that the comprehensive plan's feature-built format designates the property as urban general, and it's also designated as a residential in the future land use map. The proposed rezoning request does support the comprehensive plan's filling in our framework strategy to encourage higher density mixed-use walkable infill development. the creating great places goal to meet housing needs and desires with a sufficient and diverse supply of housing products prices and locations the proposed CDRM8 district allows land uses that are compatible with the general character of the area staff and its care should be taken with respect to building orientation materials height and visual buffers to ensure appropriate transitions to the lower density residential uses on adjacent properties any questions any questions of Mr. Kirkland

Would the applicant like a couple of minutes to tell us about the case?

Madam Chair and Commissioners, Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road. I think you can see in staff's materials there's a good, fair amount of existing townhome development in the immediate area. Our requested zoning district is consistent with what we back up to right along our southern property line. So no real deviation from the development pattern that's already in place out along this portion of Fleming. So happy to answer any questions that you have.

It appears from the list of uses it has not been fine-tuned as to what the final product would be.

That's right, yes. So we're leaving some flexibility for detached single-family products and other, I guess what I would call non-controversial product types, but we're excluding multifamily apartments. There's no intent to develop that, and that's what we typically see as kind of the heartburn driver for neighbors. So we're taking that off the board.

Okay. Any other questions? I don't see any more.

Thank you.

Thank you. Since this has now become an expedited case with no opposition, we will close the public hearing.

I'd like to make a motion.

Okay.

Z26-08-006, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes and its actions to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the property at 1927 Fleming Road from R3 Residential Single Family 3 to CDRM 8, Conditional District Residential Multifamily 8, to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan, and considers the action taken to be reasonable in the public interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's future build format and future land use map. The proposed CDRM8 zoning district as condition permits uses that fits the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impact on the adjacent properties. The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and the surrounding area, and approval is in the public interest.

Mr. Nichols, I second.

All right. We have a motion from Ms. Magid and a second from Mr. Nichols to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? That passes on an 8-0 vote. And this constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the Planning Department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal and all such appeals will be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, September 15th, 2026 City Council meeting and all adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. And that concludes our agenda for the evening. Items from the planning department?

We don't have anything specific. I just want to remind the commission that we'll have elections for chair and vice chair at the next meeting, so just give consideration to that.

Okay. And are we up to speed on what might happen next month in terms of cases?

We haven't got a finalized agenda. We're looking right around 11 right now.

Okay. Oh, happy day. Lots going on. All right, we have a potential 11 cases for next month.

I just want to express my appreciation to the commission for being flexible this evening. I know we had to do a lot of changing around to accommodate the other meeting tonight, so I appreciate you guys working with us and being flexible on schedule. We appreciate it.

Correct.

Yes, that is correct. The next meeting is on Wednesday, September the 23rd.

And thank you for all that you did today.

Yes, it was not an easy evening, but we got through it in what I consider to be record time, considering we were delayed.

And I'd just like to say we've heard about Andrew Nelson. And we just want to wish him well. He will not be here at the next meeting.

Yeah, so I'll just speak real quick on Andrew's behalf because that hasn't been made official yet. But, yes, he is going to be taking the position.

I didn't think you were ready to announce it.

Yeah, he's looking to take a position with Greenville, North Carolina. doing a combination of comprehensive planning and zoning and annexation pieces there. So yes, we very much appreciate all he has done and we're going to miss him very much, but we don't actually have an official deadline yet as far as when he's going, so that's why we weren't going to make any mention tonight about that.

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Andrew's going to East Carolina.

Thank you for all that you did, Andrew.

Are you ready for your final motion? All righty. And I'll second that one. Thank you all so much. Thank you.

.